We received a request to post Mr. Keenan's open letter to the Board of Selectman and to the citizens of Winchester in it's entirety and without edits. Mr. Keenan is a citizen of Winchester and is concerned with a number of issues going on in town, especially the lawsuit against Margaret Sharra and the Planning Board ...
From the Desk of John Keenan :
re: Malfeasance, incompetence of Margaret Sharra, chairperson of the Planning Board. Sharra causes town $20,000 in legal fees and asks for a raise??
The following is uncontroverted;
1> Through Margaret's extreme rudeness and lack of fair play, (allowing people to be heard in a calm and professional manner) the Van Dyke legal bills ( billed and paid through October 26th, 2009) are: Van Dyke $2,480.00 and Towne/Homan $17,219.00. This alone totals $19, 699.00 so far. This type of unnecessary spending increases Winchester property taxes. Margaret is almost totally at fault for this extreme malfeasance.
2> Recently, a judge ordered Margaret to recuse herself from any hearing re:Towne ... Her previous seperate inquiry to DES disqualified her from participating in the boards discussion of Towne's motion for Reconsideration. Her improper involvement invalidated the board's previous decision ( see Judge Tucker's ruling August 28th, 2009 ).
She often improperly seeks to advocate for a developer like in this case, or, when after a Planning Board is over, the public, including abutters and their attorney, are told to leave and yet the developer, his engineers and attorney stay on chatting with the board after nearly every meeting. This is absurd and wrong and yet has happened time and time again.
3> One of her tactics to control the flow of information the board receives is to interrupt whomever she doesn't feel sees eye to eye with her, in this case, Mr. Towne who she has rudely interrupted several times and she has threatened to call the police, on at least two occasions, after she got into a " hissy fit".
Her position on this board requires professionalism and calmness and fairness. It may have saved the town $20,000.00 if she had remained calm, professional and allowed both sides to testify without censor. If she had done this, we would not have $20,000.00 in legal fees over this.
4> She should also not be allowed to be calling attorney Barton Mayer all the time, or so she says she does, to get his opinion and if she does, he should answer in an e-mail so that ALL PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS have a copy and make an informed determination based on this information; not just relying on what Margaret interprets his meaning was. In addition, all planning board members should have access to all information and any weekly updates before the meeting ... Even Boy Scouts are prepared !!
5> The Planning Board has done very little correctly in the Van Dyke case from what I can see.
a.) There has never been a completed application submitted to the board by Van Dyke to this day.
b.) He needs and does not have a Joint Use Agreement from PSNH, applied for in March of 2008. Margaret Sharra keeps insisting it will be issued any day every time this point is brought up.
c.) He needs and does not have State approval for his community water system or his septic design. In fact, though the public hearings are closed, according to the minutes, he still hasn't fully designed them yet !!
d.) The board has given him a final approval with conditions; though he has yet to meet the conditions of his conditional approval and has given him another year to do so.
How is this being fair to the abutters and other townsfolk ??
6> A Conflict of Interest: She works 32 hours in the Land Use Dept. as chair of the Planning Board, she presides over and takes the minutes of these meetings despite the board having an assigned secretary, she also was formally employed by Earl Beamon as a real estate agent. That is ridiculous and should not be allowed, the secretary must take the minutes !!
7> Recusal; Both her and Dean Beaman must recuse themselves when Beaman matters are heard, this is the law .. and yet at one meeting when Kathy Beaman approached the board for her"green elderly subdivision", Margaret remained sitting at the head of the table and under the guise of taking the minutes, directing the meeting indirectly by instructing the board and asking questions for them ... This is what she calls recusal?? She should have stepped down and possibly left the room, not remained seated on the board !
8> She should be sanctioned for her incompetent conduct in the amount of 1/2 the legal fees, $10,000.00 that the town has incurred due to her conduct. I suggest that $10,000.00 be divided among the police patrolmen in an attempt to keep them on our police force as they are the lowest paid in the area.
9> She is also the secretary; but not an appointed member of the ZBA ( or is she?? ) She should only be allowed to on one board and not a secretary on the other, too much conflict!
This is also true of Ken Cole, he sits on the ZBA and until recently also on the planning board where is still remains as an alternate. In any case, she should not be allowed to take the minutes for both boards and definitely not for the planning board.
10> The Planning Board has been referring to Carl Hagstrom as a he is Certified Soil Scientist, not! According to the State of New Hampshire, he is a Wetlands Specialist and according to what I read on the DES site, he does not have the authority to do wetland delineations on this Van Dyke project; yet when board member Jack Marsh brought this up before the board; it was stated that this information was irrelevant?? ( check the minutes of 10/05/2009 )
11> Due to Sharra's malfeasance in the Van Dyke matter, the case will now be heard in the State Supreme Court and because of the lack of response at the recent BOS meeting, there exists the possibility of a Contempt hearing in Keene at Superior Court.
In Conclusion:
The Planning Board at the direction of Margaret Sharra is bull headed and stupid. Winchester does not want these exorbitant legal fees. So Do something about it !!
In my opinion the town would be best served if the board would start over; get themselves a calm, professional chairperson, hear all sides ( abutters and developer )
The key to all this is: DO IT RIGHT!
You know, with someone besides Sharra taking the minutes we may not end up getting alternate versions of what happened at these meetings from the town's version, to the newspapers to the actual transcription of the recorded audio. Margaret's slanted untrue version has fraudulently slanted these minutes to make her look better after her unprofessional conduct -- see October 5th minutes page #6 and August 3rd minutes and the June 15th minutes in regards to the Kathy Beaman project.
Just Do it Right for everyone .....
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Friday, November 6, 2009
State Supreme Court Accepts Case
We received word from the two neighbors still involved in fighting the Planning Board and the way the matter has been handled over the proposed condominium development on Franklin Mountain, that the State Supreme Court has accepted their case before them. They were notified by mail in a letter today, from the Clerk of Court, that case No. 2009-0713 has been accepted. We'll post further information as it becomes available from them.
Looks like the town will be spending a lot more of our tax dollars in the near future.
Looks like the town will be spending a lot more of our tax dollars in the near future.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Board of Selectmen Petitioned to Remove Sharra
At tonight's Board of Selectman's meeting, Mr. Towne approached the board during the public session and requested that under RSA 673:13, Section II the board exercise it's authority and remove Margaret Sharra as chairperson and member of the Planning Board. Citing her animosity, malice and outright rudeness to him at both the June 15th and August 3rd meetings, where she acted in bad faith, rudely interrupting and yelling at him as he attempted to speak to the board and for allowing her personal feelings of dislike for him to cloud her judgment and move her to act in a very detrimental way involving not only the other members of the board; but resulting in the town being involved in a very expensive lawsuit as a result of her conduct. He stated her treatment of him and others was very wrong and that her actions demanded this situation be dealt with immediately if the Selectmen and the Planning Board were to have any credibility. He also reminded them of Judge Tucker's recent ruling and that under RSA 673:14, she had been disqualified from participating in discussions and that the Planning Board's denial of Mr Towne's request for a reconsideration be vacated and that the matter be re-heard. However on October 5th, she did just that by orchestrating the nonpublic session the board entered into before the scheduled meeting to grant Mr. Towne his ordered hearing and that by her interference, the board once again denied him the opportunity to participate, though they knew he was recovering from surgery and had received a letter from him requesting a continuance. Mr. Towne also informed the board that if they did not act upon his request to do the right thing, he would once again be forced to seek relief through the court and file a motion for contempt, which unfortunately will implicate all of the members of the Planning Board, something he does not want to do. Before Mr. Towne could finish speaking to the board, member Tedford, made a motion to close the public hearing and stated they should not be discussing anything with him due to the ongoing litigation. As Mr. Towne was turning from the microphone to take his seat, Chairman Ruth spoke out that Mr. Towne would do anything to stop the proposed condominium project before the board. What this board and the Planning Board fail to see is that if Mr. Towne had been afforded the same courtesy as any other abutter, had been notified when this project was first proposed as required by law, allowing him to participate in due process , had been allowed to present testimony before the board without being censored by Margaret Sharra and if the board had just followed it's own rules and regulations when dealing with this contractor, requiring him to be accountable to both the board and abutters as they have done with other applicants in the past; then perhaps there would have been no lawsuit and wasted tax payer dollars. Unfortunately; because of the lack of any response to his request and what appears to be the failure of this board to take any responsibility and act upon his request, the town once again may find itself back in court for failure to do the right thing.
It's your money they will continue to spend to defend the actions of a chairperson who is so obviously out of control she'll stop at nothing to get her way. Don't blame Mr. Towne for attempting to exercise his rights to be heard. Put the blame where it belongs.
It's your money they will continue to spend to defend the actions of a chairperson who is so obviously out of control she'll stop at nothing to get her way. Don't blame Mr. Towne for attempting to exercise his rights to be heard. Put the blame where it belongs.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
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.”
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.”
Thursday, October 22, 2009
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.
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?
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?
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?
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
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.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
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.
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 !!!!!!
Sunday, October 11, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
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.
Friday, October 9, 2009
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 $$$. Which by the way this policy was approved and signed off on December 17, 2008 by the Board of Selectmen.
You can rest assured that none of the Winchester Police Officers are duly sworn officers of Swanzey, Keene or any other police department in Cheshire County.
According to his policy no town car or uniform is to be used outside of the Town of Winchester limits other than official business, not off duty work.
A written request by way of a completed form must be filled out and maintained in the personnel file of any Officer working a detail. You can be rest assured you will not find this form in any of the officers personnel files, again another violation of department policies.
Which by the way is exactly the reason why Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci quit working off-duty details.
Officer’s not having completed a 1-year probation are not eligible to participate in Off-Duty employment. For instance, Officer Smith and Officer Meacham would not be able to participate in Off-Duty employment as they are on probation.
Again, as has been stated all too many times the Policies of this department are not being followed. There are serious flaws in the system and abuses abound because of it.
Maybe Gary Phillips should be investigated and found to be not in compliance of his own policy for every time he did a detail.
The policies are clear – No Police Related Off Duty Employment outside the Town Limits unless the Officer is working in conjunction with another jurisdiction AND is a Duly Sworn Officer of that Jurisdiction. In other words in order for an Officer to work in another town they would have to be sworn in by that particular department. Therefore, in accordance to Chief Phillips policy this is a clear violation and the biggest violator of this policy is the one who has done the most details none other than Chief Phillips himself, violating his own policy by making 10’s of 1,000’s of $$$. 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.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
