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?

Association by-laws

At the request of some readers of the blog we have posted the Association By-Laws so you can see for yourself what they are and you can make a determination for yourself whether anything was done inappropriately.

WINCHESTER POLICE ASSOCIATION

BY-LAWS

ARTICLE 1

Name

The name of this organization shall be known as The Winchester Police Association.

ARTICLE 2

Mission

The mission of the Winchester Police Association shall be to promote the well being and safety
of the membership in the work place as well as the public sector. In its endeavors, the Association attempts to foster community spirit and pride.

ARTICLE 3
Membership

Membership in the Winchester Police Association shall be granted to all sworn police officers, as well as other full-time employees of the Winchester Police Department upon 1-year probationary period coinciding with the respective employees date of hire. Annual dues of $25 will be collected from each member by January of each year. Dues will include a yearly membership with the NH Police Association.

Any member of the Winchester Police Association who retires from the Winchester Police Department with a minimum of 10 years of service to the department, or who suffers a job related disability regardless of his/her length of service, becomes a member for life and all
annual dues are waived.

ARTICLE 4

Meetings

Meetings of the Association shall be called at the discretion of the President when needed.

ARTICLE 5

Officers, Nominations and Elections

Section 1: The officers of this Association shall be a President, Vice .President and
Secretary/Treasurer.

Section 2: Nomination for officers of the Association can be made at any scheduled meeting.

Section 3: Persons nominated for any of the Officer positions must be fall-tune employees of the
Winchester Police Department.

Section 4: Elections of any Officer position shall be done by secret ballot vote. All members of the Winchester Police Department who attend meetings have voting power.

Section 5: All elected Officers of the Winchester Police Association have unlimited term
lengths.

ARTICLE 6

Duties of Officers

Section 1: The President of the Association shall preside at all scheduled meetings. He/She is in
charge of all daily functions of the Association.

Section 2: The Vice President of the Association shall act as designee in the absence of the
President.

Section 3: The Secretary/Treasurer of the Association shall be responsible for all Association
correspondence, billings and receipt and deposit of all Associations Funds. The Secretary will
also be responsible for maintaining minutes of the meetings and will assign a designee in his/her
absence.

ARTICLE 7

Conflict of Interest

1. Each elected officer of the Winchester Police Association, prior to taking charge of his/her respective office, shall submit in writing a list of all businesses or other organizations of which he/she is an officer, director, trustee, member, owner (either sole proprietor or partner), shareholder, employee or agent, with which the Association has, or might reasonably in the future enter into, a relationship or a Transaction in which the officers would have conflicting interests. The Chief of Police shall become familiar with the statements of all officers in order to guide their conduct should a conflict arise.

2. At such time as any matter comes before the Association in such a way as to give rise to a conflict of interest, the affected officer shall make known the potential conflict, whether disclosed by his/her written statement or not, and after answering any questions that might be asked him/her, shall withdraw from the meeting for so long as the matter shall continue under discussion. Should a matter be brought to a vote, neither the affected Officer nor any other officer with a pecuniary benefit transaction with the Association shall vote on it.

3.The Officers will comply with all the requirements of New Hampshire law where conflicts of interest are involved, included but not limited to the requirements of a thirds vote where the financial benefit to the Officer is between $500 and $5000 in a fiscal year, and to the requirement of a two-thirds vote and publication in the required newspaper where the financial benefits exceed $5000 in a fiscal year. The New Hampshire statutory requirements are incorporated into and made a part of this conflict policy.

ARTICLE 8

Dissolution Provision

Upon the dissolution of the Winchester Police Association all assets shall be distributed to the
Ellen Lambert Murphy Memorial (ELMM) Community Center of Winchester, NH, a non-profit
organization registered under the Internal Revenue code as 501 .C (3) status.

ARTICLE 9

Miscellaneous Provisions

Section I: Any member of the Association can spend up to $25,00 with the approval of three (3) other members within the organization. Receipts to justify the expenditure must be submitted to the treasurer. The President and Vice-President can spend up to $75.00 with no immediate approval needed from the organization. However, notification to the organization must be submitted in writing, either by memo or e-mail within 24 hours of said expenditure. Receipts'to justify the expenditure must be submitted to the treasurer.

Section 2: Any expenditure over the amounts listed above and under the above-described circumstances must require two-thirds vote by all membership for approval.

This Constitution may be amended, revised, or otherwise changed by a two-thirds vote of all members. This document shall act as an Official Document of the Winchester Police Association.

By-Laws for this Association shall be effective this 29th day of July 2005.


Signed by then President Theresa Sepe
Date 7/29/05

As the late Paul Harvey would have said .. " and now for the rest of the story"

Over the past few weeks lots of troubling information has been provided to this blog in regards to our Selectmen and our Police Dept., many questions have been asked; but alas, no answers have been provided, other than the standard "it's just a few malcontents with too much time on their hands, stirring the pot." So we went looking for the truth and this is what we have found.

Many eyebrows were raised in regards to the new table in Town Hall provided by the Winchester Police Association., a non profit organization, made up of Winchester police officers. According to BOS minutes, this table was a gift to the town by the association. On the surface this all appears to be on the up and up and a real windfall for the town; but is it?

Here is some information about the Winchester Police Association for those who read this blog. The following on the surface appears to be a letter written on behalf of the WPA, making a donation to the town, however it is not what it appears to be. This letter is NOT from the WPA but a letter from Chris Roberts making it appear it’s from the WPA by the use of the WPA letterhead.

It must be noted that the WPA is not a part of the Town of Winchester, it’s a non-profit legal entity with binding by-laws, whose voting members are Winchester Police Officers, so in essence those involved with the WPA are OUR police officers.

A copy of the following letter can be obtained at the town hall for verification.

Copy of letter bearing Chris Roberts Signature dated July 7, 2009 making a Unilateral Decision purposely bypassing the President and Treasurer and usurping their legal authority in this association, in a blatant attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of members of the community to believe that this donation was made with the permission of the other members of the association and in compliance with the by-laws of the association.

Winchester Police Association
6 Parker Street
Winchester, NH 03470
603-239-6335
Croberts.wpd@comcast.xxx

July 7, 2009

Town of Winchester
1 Richmond Road
Winchester, NH 03470

Attn: Town Administrator Gray
Re: Police Association Donation

Dear Bob,
On behalf of the Winchester Police Association I am writing to inform you that we have voted to make a donation to the Town of Winchester. Please accept the 16’ conference table as a donation to the Town of Winchester to be used in the town hall in any manner you see fit. This table was purchased through a cash donation by Herb Stevens to the association and was only made possible by his willingness to drive to Pennsylvania and pick it up for us.

The seller of this table worked with the Winchester Police Association and agreed to lower his asking price by $200.00, which is well below market value. The Winchester Police Association is dedicated to providing services to the community as well as supporting the Town of Winchester. This contribution provides us the opportunity to donate this table to the Board of Selectmen to use at their weekly meetings, or any other use you may have for it and we feel is a nice addition to the Town Hall.

The association has used some of our cash donation in the past to purchase food baskets for the needy during the holidays. We have also purchased some badly needed equipment for the police department in an effort to promote safety within the community. Continued donations like these will support the growth of the Winchester Police Association and help support our community.

Sincerely,
Christopher K Roberts
Vice President – WPA

points of fact

Investigating we found that NO meeting had taken place to discuss a possible purchase and donation of a table and NO vote had taken place. The by-laws of the association clearly state that a vote by ALL membership must take place for purchases over $75.00 and the President will preside over meetings and those meetings will be at the President’s discretion.
1.) The President, Warren Breau, and the Treasurer, Dan Reppucci, had first learned of this donation, when it was brought to their attention several weeks after mention of the donation in the BOS meeting minutes.
2.) The treasurer, Dan Reppucci has no records to substantiate this donation. The managing of the checking account and any other responsibilities of the recording of finances for the association rests with the Treasurer.
3.) The Vice President’s role is designee in the President’s absence and otherwise has no power or authority to make decisions regarding the association. Nor according to the by-laws does the Vice President have the power to write correspondence on behalf of the association.
4.) The fact that the donation did NOT pass through the association would confirm that the association could not have donated anything to the town.
5.) Even if the association were to accept the money, properly recording it’s receipt and then properly recording a purchase, a donation still can not be made to the town.
6.) The WPA is a non-profit organization and as such, cannot solicit donations under the pretense of using donations that are made for the benefit of the WPA and it’s membership, and then make gifts of those donations to private or government entities.
7.) The letter states the seller worked with the WPA and agreed to lower his price. Was the seller made aware that the reduced price was for the benefit of some town and not the WPA?
8.) Does a table donated to the town support growth of the WPA?

The letter was written and submitted to the BOS by officer Chris Roberts.This letter was submitted to, and the donation was accepted by the BOS who were given untrue and misleading information provided by Chris Robert.

Is this yet another example of some in power, abusing that power?
Again, the laws and rules are being broken by people whose employment requires an exceptional knowledge of the laws and rules.

You decide, is this simply a misunderstanding and lack of knowledge or a total disregard and manipulation of laws?

Checking further we found out that another letter had been written to the Town and sent to the BOS and Bob Gray, after becoming aware that a donation to the town had been made. To date both Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci confirm that neither the BOS nor Bob Gray have responded to this letter. Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci are both still members and officers of the WPA, no meeting has been called for the election of new officers and the NH Attorney General’s office will direct the President, Warren Breau when that next meeting will be.

Verification of the following letter can be obtained from the town hall or contacting Warren Breau or Dan Reppucci.

Winchester Police Association
6 Parker Street
Winchester, NH 03470

July 29, 2009

Town of Winchester
1 Richmond Street
Winchester, NH 03470

Dear Board of Selectmen:

It has come to our attention that the minutes of the selectmen’s meeting of July 8, 2009, state that the Winchester Police Association donated to the Town of Winchester, a 16’ conference table.
We would like to state that as the President and the Treasurer of the Association that we have no record of:
Ø When a purchase for a conference table was made
Ø Any receipt for that purchase
Ø Any donation made by Herb Stephens
Ø Any $200.00 donation – cash or otherwise
Ø Any $200.00 payment – cash or otherwise
Ø No record of any vote taken to authorize the purchase
Ø No record of any vote was taken to authorize a donation to the town
Ø Any purchase over $75.00 requires a two–thirds vote by all membership per the by-laws
Ø At minimum the President and the Treasurer were never made aware of this vote

The letter sent by Chris Roberts to the Town of Winchester making this presentation to the town is not valid, as he does not have the authority to do. We believe that a donation made that specifies purchasing something for the town is not a donation but merely a misrepresentation of one.

Further, the association does not make contributions of its equipment, furnishing or the like to any town departments or to other entities but rather maintains ownership and loans these items. It is not the purpose of the Winchester Police Association to subsidize the town and we feel that it is a conflict of interest and grossly contradictory to our by-laws.

Since there is no record of the police association making this purchase, we have regretfully concluded that the donation came from Herb Stephens.

Copies of the selectmen’s meeting minutes, Chris Roberts letter, this letter and the bank statements have all been forwarded to the Attorney General’s office for their revue as all paper work has not been submitted to the appropriate officers of the association in regards to the finances.

Under the circumstances, we would like a retraction at the next selectmen's meeting of the donation being made to the town on behalf of the police association.

Respectfully,

Warren Breau, President

Dan Reppucci, Treasurer

Why does the BOS show a lack of regard to the President and the Treasurer of this organization of which the BOS has no jurisdiction and whose domain remains outside that of the WPA. Why when presented with this letter and request for action did the BOS and Bob Gray flagrantly ignore the President and Treasurer’s request ?

Both, the President, Warren Breau and the Treasurer Dan Reppucci were employed with the Town of Winchester at the time the request was made, so there could have been no mistaking they had the authority to make the request if in fact employment with the town was their concern.

If the President and Treasurer had different names or belonged to a different association, would they have been treated differently? Would they have been recognized for the positions they held as officers in an organization and been given the respect they should have gotten?

Why are the BOS so opposed to acknowledging this letter and making a retraction of the erroneous donation made by Chris Roberts? A donation made by someone who did not have the authority to make the donation and speak on behalf of the other members of the WPA.

Was there perhaps a plan in effect? Could this have something to do to why both officers Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci are no longer employed as police officers in Winchester?

So what do you think, is there something really fishy about all of this? Is there something going on here other than what we have been told?
Or do you feel this just another attempt by a few malcontents to simply stir the pot as those at Town Hall would have you believe?

To verify anything written above you can contact the Attorney General’s Office – Charitable Trusts @ 271-3591 for other Right To Know information regarding this matter.

We have heard rumors that many people have stated they fear retaliation from certain individuals in the Town of Winchester if they report any complaints or try to bring to attention any wrongdoing. If you have information you think may be important and want to report it without fear of any retaliation, we ask that you please contact the AG’s office @ 271-3671 or email the Informer so that these issues begin to get resolved.

Has The BOS Committed a Crime Against The Community?

Last year we voted down a Warrant Article asking if we should approve $10,000.00 for a new police cruiser. The Warrant Article was defeated by ballot. By going behind the backs of the citizens of Winchester and giving the thumbs up to the Police Chief to purchase a new cruiser; despite a NO vote on the warrant article the chief submitted, has the board, under RSA 32:10, I(e), committed a crime and should they be immediately dismissed ?


www.nhlgc.org/LGCWebsite/InfoForOfficials/legalqamasterpage.asp?LegalQAID=73

Now going back to the minutes of that meeting, some excerpts:

Chief Phillips would like to take $10,000.00 from the budget, and the rest to come out of the Outside Activities Fund.

Chief Phillips explains that the Warrant Article from March’s Town Meeting, asking the people to place $10,000.00 in the Police Cruiser Capital Reserve Fund, was voted down by a small margin.

Selectman Tedford makes a motion to buy a new police cruiser by taking $12,000.00 from the operating budget ..
Selectman Berthiaume seconds the motion and it passes 5-0.

Despite the law being very clear on what they can and can not do, once again reading the minutes of the BOS workshop meeting of August 26th, 2009 you will see that this is still an ongoing situation and that our selectmen have very little regard for how you may vote and how they may spend our tax money ..

Board of Selectmen Work Session Minutes 08/26/2009

http://winchester-nh.gov/Pages/WinchesterNH_Selectminutes/I0268C07B

6th Order of Business: Update on Summer Projects
Highway Superintendent Dale Gray would like to give the Board an update on summer projects. They have used 1,650 of the approved purchase of 1,850 tons. All the work has been done except Bolton Road, which should happen next week. Dale would like to chip seal Ashuelot Street, Burt Hill Road and Forest Lake next spring, not this fall. Dale fears the chip seal may fail again if they do not give it 6 weeks of hot, dry weather. Dale spoke with All States and they will guarantee this work for next year. Dale explains he has a total of $209,000 with Highway Block Grant, the tarring account, and sand & gravel account funds. Selectman Berthiaume read from a Legislative Update that towns would lose a lot of grant money, such as Highway Block Grant funds, to which Dale was told that the town would not suffer a decrease in funds. The Board would like to have this information available before budget time and to get the State Reps involved. Dale would like to shim Bolton Road, the first part of Scotland Road, Piney Woods Road around the sandbank, and a bad spot on Old Chesterfield Road with a 600-ton mix. Dale says if he does not chip seal, and does the shim work he will carry over roughly $50,000.00. Dale will propose a warrant article to chip seal everything that has been shimmed in the last two years at an estimated cost of $250,000.00 to take care of 10 miles of road. These roads were shimmed within the last two years and would guarantee their durability for another 8-10 years. It takes money to upkeep roads and this would give the people an opportunity to participate. If you don’t chip seal what you put down, then it won’t hold up. Selectman Fraser makes a motion to continue shimming with the 600 ton of blacktop. If the warrant article fails, use Highway Block Grant and tarring money, and in the spring do the chip seal. Selectman Gardner seconds the motion and it passes 4-0.

So what do we do? How do we get them to follow the wishes of the townspeople and the law? It's very clear, under the law, "No" means "No" .. except it seems in Winchester.

New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law, RSA Chapter 91-A.

On July 15, 2009, the Attorney General’s Office updated its Memorandum on New Hampshire’s Right-to-Know law, RSA Chapter 91-A. This Memorandum describes the law and the judicial decisions that further define and explain the peoples’ right to know.
The purpose of this Memorandum is to provide guidance in complying with Revised Statutes Annotated (“RSA”) chapter 91-A to State and local officials, the public and the media. While enforcement of the Right-to-Know law is assigned to the superior court, the Attorney General’s Office will continue to promote the public’s understanding of the Right-to-Know law and compliance by public officials with the Right-to-Know law.
In 2008 and 2009, the New Hampshire Legislature amended the Right-to-Know law to clarify how it applies to governmental records in electronic form, electronic communications used to transact governmental business, and the duty to preserve electronic records. The amendments provide new definitions and set forth how the Right to-Know law applies to public bodies versus public agencies. This Office has updated our Right-to-Know law Memorandum to reflect these amendments to the law and recent court decisions.

read the full statute here:
http://doj.nh.gov/publications/documents/right_to_know.pdf

get a copy of the form here:
http://winchester-informed-citizen.org/pdf/RtoKform.pdf

Question for all bloggers ..

Recently I was contacted by a citizen in town who wants to help give this blog more integrity by having posters have to register instead of allowing them to post anonymously. I do see the reasoning behind this but also see people's needs to remain in the shadows for fear of some sort of retaliation, be it a neighbor who disagrees and can be very vocal, to someone in a position down town dumping some grief on someone for participating in a discussion of this blog. I'll leave it up to all of you as to how we go forward. Without your input, your opinions and your support, this would just be another blog on the internet with no following.

Disturbing Public Information

This information was posted in another blog subject and verified. This is pretty disturbing and raises several questions. Isn't there a town rule or state law prohibiting candidates to run if they owe back taxes? If Ms. Fraser is having such a hard time paying her property taxes on time, why did she vote against a proposed warrant article at last year Deliberative Session intended to help disabled taxpayers receive a measly $750.00 tax credit as mandated by the State of New Hampshire; yet not allowed by the BOS in Winchester? Doesn't seem right she wouldn't want to help others in the same predicament as herself. So much for serving the people of Winchester.

Interesting Info for the masses:

ROBERTA FRASER DOESN”T LIKE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES

If you go to the Winchester Informer Homepage and at the very bottom of the page link to NH Deeds then to Cheshire County. Once in the Cheshire County Registry of Deeds website do a property search (Search County Records) accept agreement and a new screen pops up. Type in a last name, a town if you wish and then you have records. Click on the record you want to view and a screen will pop up.

For instance I did this for Fraser in Winchester and checked on Roberta:

Roberta Fraser a Selectmen residing at 324 Manning Hill Rd

There were 5 entries for tax levies for Roberta and they are as follows:

2003 taxes due $6,871.28 tax levy filed on 4/1/04

2005 taxes due $6,934.61 tax levy filed on 5/15/06

2006 taxes due $7,459.37 tax levy filed on 4/13/07

2007 taxes due $7,323.45 tax levy filed on 4/11/08

2008 taxes due $7,648.58 tax levy filed on 4/16/09

Folks - year after year she doesn't pay her taxes -

How can someone so irresponsible year after year be allowed to handle important matters and make financial decisions for people in this town when it’s obvious that there is no sense to the cost of the taxpayers as she thumbs her nose at their expense. ROBERTA FRASER how do you justify to the town’s people that year after year you do not pay your taxes? When people like you don’t pay their taxes it costs struggling people more because they have to pick up the slack because when the town has to borrow money we have to pay for that loan. I’ve heard the selectmen and others complain that the lies are coming from a few unhappy people and that we should trust what the higher ups have to say because they have our best at heart and will be forthcoming with truth and honesty and integrity. Does anyone really believe any of them anymore? We’ll keep digging and it’s obvious that as we do these elected and appointed officials will be shown to have less integrity than we even thought possible.

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.

Winchester's Highway Supt. Very Upset

During the August 26th BOS workshop meeting, Dale Gray asked that their record reflect the following;

That the Town of Winchester Highway Dept. did not work on or near the van Dyke property on Route 10 last week. The LeClair property, next to Van Dyke, may have had silt washing that caused the runoff, not the Van Dyke property. Dale states he would never do any work on the Van Dyke or State property without prior BOS approval. Dale is concerned that budget time is coming up and some citizens are making damaging and untrue remarks about Town employees, around town and on the Winchester Informer. Bob Gray, responds the employees of Winchester need to do their jobs with integrity and fulfill our fiduciary responsibilities to the people of this town

fact:

It seems this topic really upset our Highway Supt., Dale Gray, so much so that he complained to the BOS during the August 26th workshop meeting. He was angered that this website had posted information that was later to be found inaccurate and was corrected. Yet, he then claimed that the sand and silt that was clogging the spillways and drains that the NHDOT cleaned out last week, actually came from the lot next to Van Dyke's construction site, owned by the LeClaire's. The truth of the matter is, the amount of sand at the bottom of the spillway coming down from the LeClaire's property wouldn't fill a wheelbarrow, never mind two dump trucks and never reached the drain in question, some 300 feet away and uphill from the spillway. Nor did it reach the drain, less than 25 feet away next to his driveway that the state didn't bother to clean out and which is still filled with water. This is because the sump in front of Shamrock Realty is still clogged with the sand that ran off Van Dyke's through the drains and under the highway, clogging the drains and spillways across the street that the state returned to and cleaned out the following day and also created a catch basin to try and stop more sand from covering the forest floor to the right of the old rail bed. Perhaps Mr. Gray should also double check and get his facts straight or perhaps we should look for another Highway Supt. if he can't tell that all of the erosion on Van Dyke's site is the cause of all this mess. I find it highly suspect that after a complaint and pictures were submitted to the Planning Board at a compliance hearing on this matter, less than a week later the NHDOT is observed cleaning out the area mentioned in the complaint and yet did not clean out the drains before or the spillway just after Van Dyke's site. Make's you wonder just what forces are at work here. I also wonder why our Highway Supt. is out on Route 10, looking at drains and spillways if he's not involved?

Despite Citizen's Vote Triple T Going Ahead

We've received the following letter to the editor and more information on Triple T's/ N&M Properties plans to continue in their pursuit to build a compost/trash collection facility in our town whether we like it or not. Evidently they must have the support they need in order to spend the money required to push forward.

Letter To The Editor:

Imagine the thousands of tourists that hop on a motor coach every fall to enjoy the glorious colors of our region. First on their agenda is the Sheridan House and covered bridge No. 1 in the quaint village of Ashuelot with its beautiful white lattice sides and red roof. With cameras around their necks, they get ready to disembark the bus to see the grey heron standing in the middle of the river, or the cedar waxwings lined up on the telephone line. Imagine all of them getting off the bus to the stench of putrefying restaurant waste. How long do you think it will be before the tour industry takes Bridge No. 1 off its route and by passes it completely?



The village of Ashuelot is proud of its historical bridge and volunteer on a regular basis to snap photos of people wishing to be seen standing next to it. We see dozens of tourist stopping daily to enjoy its beauty. Unfortunately for us we have a company out of Brattleboro, Vermont who wants to settle the trash from three states right next to this location with a “Resource Recovery Park”. They claim that it’s the perfect location to install a sand & gravel pit, bring in over 25 truck loads of waste every day and then store and compost it, right in the middle of a wildlife corridor from Pisgah State to the Ashuelot River. On a regular basis, this neighborhood witness deer, bears, coyotes, red tailed fox, beaver, and more crossing this land to access the river. We see no way that this is beneficial to anyone, but them.



Our town came out to vote in March on their submitted warrant article and resoundingly said “NO!” Our voices are being ignored as they arrogantly continue to pursue our state’s Department of Environmental Services permits. Their proposal will have a negative impact on our village, our town, our region and our state. Again, we ask Triple T Trucking of Vermont (aka N&M Winchester Properties), PLEASE JUST GO AWAY!



Kim Gordon

Ashuelot, New Hampshire

Facts;

Since withdrawing his thinly guised “Commercial / Industrial Park” from the Planning Board docket in June, he has gone about procuring his state permits for the work. As of this writing, he has obtained an Alteration of Terrain permit (applied for December 22, 2008 and granted on June 10, valid for two years); and a Shoreland Protection permit (applied for May 22 as a “Materials Recovery Facility” and granted last week): and is currently working on a Dredge & Fill Permit for a “Materials Recovery Park”.

Quoting from his Dredge & Fill application to DES:

“This site was chosen for use as a solid waste transfer station and a composting facility to serve towns within an approximate 50-mile radius. The proposed operation will fulfill a critical regional need to divert compostable materials from the waste stream and to facilitate nutrient and mineral natural cycling

The above referenced critical regional need is a direct result of the restrictive regulatory climate in our neighboring states. Changing our protective zoning ordinances to allow any waste hauling or processing business will result in a flood of trash business in Winchester.

Imagine a regional landfill in town. Not a far fetched idea given that it is all but impossible to permit a new landfill site in either Massachusetts or Vermont. The solid waste industry in both of those states has been reduced to “piggybacking” expansions onto existing landfills or hauling trash elsewhere as existing landfill space runs out.

By way of comparing regulatory climates, Mr. Mallory & Mr. Gaskill’s Dredge & Fill permit application to the Wetland Bureau of the New Hampshire DES states that they propose disturbing 26,571 square feet of wetlands (a little over ½ acre). Their proposed mitigation for this is $5,314. In Massachusetts they would be required to replicate (or create) and maintain an equal amount of new wetland on site. This would cost much more both in real dollars and in loss of usable land. One might observe that we are selling our natural resources on the cheap, but that is another issue. Since we are afforded little protection from the state, we must rely on our own local ordinances to protect us.

We urge you when you are asked (and you will be) to once again vote NO! to any article that proposes changing our protective zoning ordinances and allowing waste hauling and processing business in our town.

Support a TRASH FREE WINCHESTER.

Who Authorized This Work ?

We've received an e-mail with a request to post this on our blog.

Hello Informer, while coming into town Thursday, I observed one of our town highway department trucks parked out on route 10 in front of the Shamrock Realty parking lot and saw the town employees cleaning out the storm drain there. Since when does the town of Winchester clean out storm drains on the state highways ? I would guess that someone reported all of the run off from that mess out there next door was clogging up the drains. Is the town now working for that Van Dyke fellow or was it someone from the planning board trying to cover their hineys for their lack of diligence and action? In any case I thought the good people of Winchester should know what their tax dollars were doing Thursday. I guess a call to the town hall or to the highway super would be in order to find out what the deal was. Good luck with this site, it is very informative despite what some say.

RH

If this is the case, we too would like to know why the town was seen cleaning out that storm drain and upon who's request did they do it? If Van Dyke's erosion efforts are working and are satisfactory to the town, then why worry about cleaning out the drain, there shouldn't have been anything in it.

We Need Your Help and Support

For over a year we have provided a blog and a website to inform and educate the citizens of Winchester to the goings on in our town. We have received many comments, emails and letters; some encouraging us in our efforts, some voicing thanks and some .. well let's just say some people aren't happy about what they see here and on our our Home Pages. We'd like to expand our Home Page to include other topics and information and provide more service to the citizens of Winchester, like notices about upcoming events, yard sales, items for sale, and other news and would like your opinions and ideas. Of course all of this will take a little more effort and some increased spending for more bandwidth and hosting fees. To accomplish this and make it worthwhile, we'd need your support and some help with the extra fees. If you'd like to help out, send your ideas to our email and a small cash donation ( even $1.00 will help ) to:

Winchester Informer
PO Box 464
W. Swanzey, NH 03469-0464

Thank you all for your continued support

Planning Board Chair violates citizen's rights again

At last night's continuation of Robert Van Dyke's compliance hearing, Margaret Sharra once again demonstrated that she is not fit to remain sitting on the Planning Board and needs to be removed immediately for her grievous conduct towards a citizen of Winchester who was attempting to give testimony at the hearing.
Mr Van Dyke, who didn't even bother to show up at the last scheduled meeting, once again showed up empty handed without the state approvals needed for his "newest" septic and community water supply systems, which he was has yet to even design and submit to the board and instead rendered excuses as he needed permission to once again perform more testing and was seeking the board's approval to bring another excavator up onto the property to construct another temporary road in which to perform these tests. Knowing full well that he can not do this, not only because this project is in litigation and waiting on a decision from Superior Court; but also without a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, he can not construct any road to cross under the power lines.
Carl Hagstron, who has been hired by Van Dyke to design his septic systems, attempted to sway the board commenting that without being able to perform these tests they cannot receive state approval as the board has requested. When asked if they had submitted their designs to DES, they replied they were still working on them. They have had since April to accomplish this and yet after nearly four more months of meetings and delays and continuances, they still have not complied.
After making several phone calls to state agencies and inquiring as to the status of Van Dyke's permits, the abutters attempted to submit written proof through emails that Van Dyke's driveway permit had expired and was no longer valid; his site alteration permit was incomplete and did not include information on changes he had made to construct a bridge on site and therefore was voided. He also does not have a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, which he needs BEFORE any construction can begin, as made clear in a letter from PSNH to Van Dyke's engineers and yet he has already excavated and altered the terrain on site, constructed a temporary road and sunk septic and water test pits and drilled a well inside the wetland's set-back. Depending on the depth of the pilings he will need to install and the width of the wetlands his bridge will span, he may need a 404 wetlands permit and a dredge and fill permit to fill in the swamp land on the site; he hasn't even applied for one.
During the discussions, a member of the audience was given permission to approach the board and give testimony. While speaking and laying the ground work for his questions he was once again rudely interrupted by chairperson Margaret Sharra who began arguing and shouting his name and demanding he stop speaking. She shouted at him several times, asking if he had a question to ask, to wit he replied yes each time and asked her politely to stop interrupting him and allow him to continue. She did the exact same thing to this person at the last board meeting disallowing him from giving testimony to the board. When she was asked to "please allow him to continue, she emphatically stated "no". When she was asked why she was being so rude to him, she threatened him with arrest if he did not leave the building. At that point tempers flared and both began shouting at each other until he left the building of his own free will. Once again, this person's 1st Amendment Right was violated by the board's chairperson. His right to give testimony at a public hearing was denied by someone who is obviously biased. She once again demonstrated she is unfit to sit on the board, let alone be it's chairperson.
After a short tirade by Ms. Sharra, the board continued the meeting, closing the hearings to the public; yet instructed Mr. Van Dyke to submit his new plans to them when they were ready. This is a complete violation of law; to not allow the public to view or comment on these new plans is not right. They also instructed him to prepare to put down top soil and seed all open ares of the site by Sept. 1st, which he refuses to do because in his own words, " it will just wash away ". So much for his adequate soil erosion measures which is allowing sand and silt to wash under the highway and onto abutters property already. This farce has gone on long enough and why he has not been shut down is the question of the day. The board continues to pander to him at every turn. If he had been made to follow the rules from the beginning and submit a completed application as the town's regulations require, he would have had to have all of his t's crossed and i's dotted and all state approvals and permits in hand before discussions started; but the PB acted improperly and has allowed him to proceed without all of the required by law permits and without meeting the other requirements they set forth for him.
Another call to the LGC in Concord and the ACLU and State Attorney General's office is forthcoming and a personal lawsuit may follow. Just how long are our selectmen going to allow this outrageous conduct to continue?