“At this point, everything is on the table, … All possible offset options remain open, including reconsidering highway projects sought by members in the transportation bill.”~Congressman Charlie Bass RINOism. Congressman Charlie Bass has demonstrated once again that he is the epitome of all things RINO. Bass, the Granite State’s most notable blue-blooded, Rockefellerian has once … Read more
|
||
|
||
….Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire happy! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 20, 2011 Contact: Andrew Hemingway, chairman, RLCNH, 603-203-4063 ,akreins@gmail.com RLCNH CELBRATES ‘RIGHT TO WORK’ SENATE PASSAGE, A BOON TO THE MIDDLE CLASS Veto-proof Senate vote puts onus on House to keep up its good voting record CONCORD, N.H.?The Republican Liberty Caucus of New Hampshire is grateful for the … Read more
Officers of the Weare Police Department do not like to be video-recorded, audio-recorded or photographed. In fact if recorded, they will arrest those who do without permission.
Since October of 2010, three people have been arrested by the Weare Police on felony wiretapping charges because individuals did not obtain consent from officers being videotaped. Do people ever ask for permission? Yes, in fact they do. Do police officers consent? I know of no instance. 
Police Cruisers, Booking Areas and the appurtenances of Police buildings often have video equipment installed and operating. Irony. Looking at 570-A:2, II (j), there is a legal exception for a, “uniformed law enforcement officer to make an audio recording in conjunction with a video recording of a routine stop performed in the ordinary course of patrol duties on any way as defined by RSA 259:125, provided that the officer shall first give notification of such recording to the party to the communication.”
So, the law states that police can video traffic stops and no consent is required, but a mere giving of notice to the person being stopped. But, it seems that some discretion is afforded as to video or not to video.
You might have missed this. The Governor just vetoed HB 53. HB 53 was a bill proposed by Kimberly Casey (D-Rock 11) and Jim Garrity (D-Rock 6). Both of them should be run out of the state for even proposing it. In short, it would alter 91-A (Right to know law) by redefining what a public body … Read more
The passage of the New and Improved New Hampshire Right To Know Law (as yet unsigned by Governor Lynch) redefines "public body" in a way that makes it more difficult for taxpayer to observe the inner workings of their government. An individual executive or administrative officer of a political subdivision shall not constitute a … Read more
As reported in yesterday’s Daily Sun [PDF], Belknap County has once again decided to go the hard route with former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif and yours truly, declaring that the two of us “don’t know what” we’re “talking about.” While that sentiment as expressed in the front page headline has no doubt excited certain people that love to degrade those who dare criticize local government, the fact remains that, if anything, the story actually vindicates us and the points we have raised.
First, let’s review a little history… When Tom and I questioned the legality of the appointment process used to replace Sheriff Collis, county “leaders” circled the wagons, going to the mat (and all the way to the NH Supreme Court) to prove us wrong. We all know how that ended—with the removal of the Sheriff, and compliance with law in the subsequent appointment of a new Registrar of Deeds. Yep–We won at the highest court in the state, against a lawyer paid for with our tax dollars, but we didn’t know what we were talking about…
Then there was the time that the County Convention (comprised of the delegation of 18 House members from Belknap County) forgot to have a public hearing on the budget. That little fiasco caused the county to adopt a “default” budget for the first time in memory. Funny, they did it the right way this year. Imagine that? Why would anyone do anything suggested by two clowns that don’t know what they’re talking about? It was around that time that the same pair enlightened county “leaders” as to the meaning and proper procedures needed to create and approve a supplemental budget.
And let’s not forget that occasion when Belknap County decided to borrow monies in anticipation of taxes to cover expenses. While Tom Tardif and I were studying the laws on such a matter, the county “leaders” were apparently otherwise occupied trying to do damage control after the head of finance and administration finally got caught with her fingers in the proverbial cookie jar.
Unfortunately for them, SOMEBODY should have been doing the same research as we were, because, as you might recall, they had to go back to the drawing board and do it, yes, you guessed it—OUR WAY. While claiming we weren’t really right, they followed the procedure as outlined by Tom and me in correspondence with the Convention, the bond counsel law firm, the NH Attorney General’s office, the NH Department of Revenue and the County Treasurer. In other words, this time, they would follow the law.
Fast forward to the present…When it comes to the federal dough (Recovery Act “stimulus” funds) flowing into local law enforcement agencies via the 2009 JAG grant program, it sure would be nice to know if the correct state and federal procedures to add these new monies for budgetary spending were used anywhere, be it here in the Granite State, or throughout the country. The NH Attorney General’s website has the methods by which a New Hampshire TOWN must do a supplemental appropriation when it comes to receiving grants, but is silent on sheriff’s departments and, more specifically, counties.
The letter that Mr. Tardif and I addressed to the County Convention last week outlined the basic problem as the process was conducted by the Belknap County Sheriff. Unlike the law for towns, (RSA 31:95-b) the county has no “go-around” clause for supplemental appropriations & MUST follow existing laws that call for approval by the County Convention as the governing body, not the Commissioners. In this, we are once again shown to be right, as yesterday’s Daily Sun story stated that the
“commissioners have also agreed to seek supplemental appropriation approval as required by state statute should the JAG grant request be funded."
Would this have happened had Tom and I not raised the issue? But we don’t know what we’re talking about, otherwise…
Beyond that, the other big piece to this is the TRANSPARENCY angle. “Oh, Doug, Obama’s gonna make it right– You know, the “new transparency movement” blah-blah and all that!” And indeed, the JAG really does call for transparency. The big question is what happens when it is ignored, as is the case here in Belknap?
Let me begin this post with a reminder to all that the First Amendment guarantee of free speech was primarily intended to protect those criticizing and speaking out against the government. Where it gets dicey is when the one you must criticize is supposed to protect this right…
In a letter to the Editor of the Laconia Daily Sun on March 3rd, 2008 [pdf here, p 5], Belknap County Sheriff Craig Wiggin, after accusing me of “inundating the county’s administrative staff with endless Right-to-Know requests,” further implied that I didn’t read the material, or that I chose to ignore what I learned when I did. Most people that know me know that that couldn’t be further than the truth. Two points on this: First, it’s been a while since I “inundated” anyone with RTK requests—until this week. And, second, I can now firmly stand here and tell you that it is, in fact, Sheriff Wiggin that either doesn’t read materials he has been given, or “chooses to ignore” it. Allow me to explain…
Many people know Sheriff Wiggin is seeking a grant known as a JAG, (“Justice Assistance Grant”) from the federal government on behalf of Belknap County and six municipalities within. And why not? One of the assets he supposedly brought to the table during the (fatally flawed) appointment process, according to some members of the County Convention, was his grant-writing capability.
This year, extra monies have been pumped into the JAG program as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) or, as it is more commonly called, the “stimulus” package. This is the same grant that would provide the funds for the Laconia PD that I was critical of here in this post several weeks back, noting that the dough has nothing to do with stimulating the economy and is nothing more than a handout used to maintain certain government spending at artificially inflated levels.
Other than one or two news reports of free goodies and training on the way thanks to the goodness of Uncle Sam’s heart, what does the public really know about this grant? Not much, which isn’t the way it’s supposed to work. According to the US Department of Justice, the
“Recovery Act places great emphasis on accountability and transparency in the use of taxpayer dollars.”
In fact, part of the requirements state that the grant application must be
“available for review by its governing body not fewer than 30 days before the application is submitted.”
Remember this date: May 11th, which is the day Wiggin filed the Belknap County application.
In the May 7th Laconia Daily Sun (PDF, page 8,9), reporter Kinney O’Rourke wrote that at a meeting the day before,
“the commissioners were concerned that they could not read the grant application itself.”
This came on the heels of an April 22nd meeting in which Sheriff Wiggin sought the initial grant approval from the County Commissioners sight unseen, stating he needed their approval
“now to meet the deadline and then once the application is submitted on line, he will bring to the Commissioners to approve so they don’t miss the window of opportunity.”
In other words, according to Sheriff Wiggin, we must violate the law guiding the grant because we have a deadline.
This is problematic on multiple levels…
Unless, of course, you’re one of THEM… So I’m reading the caselog report of the local (Laconia, NH) district court in last Saturday’s Citizen newspaper and I came across this: Christopher A Gibbs, 29 of Mudget Hill Road, Loudon, pleaded guilty to reckless conduct for allegedly driving in a sleep-deprived state, resulting in an accident on South Barnstead … Read more
Regular readers know that the rise of quasi-public "special operations groups" (SWAT teams) within the Granite State law enforcement community has caught our attention. In this prior post about a raid in Bristol, NH involving some 20 masked police officers, I mentioned two other recent events involving, what is in my opinion, an overwhelmingly excessive … Read more
Black Hole in space…
The Wikipedia tells us that the
“defining feature of a black hole, the event horizon, is a surface in spacetime that marks a point of no return. Once an object has crossed this surface there is no way that it can return to the other side. Consequently, anything inside this surface is completely hidden from observers outside.”
Thus, whatever the object, it is apparently lost forever.
The easiest way to understand a black hole is to study the closest thing we have on earth: government. Allow me to explain…
First, as noted above, “once an object has crossed this surface, there is no way it can return to the other side.” This is best exlemplified when our fearless elected leaders have to make a real decision. For instance, like when the Belknap County Convention (comprised of the elected house members from the county) made its first appointment of the replacement sheriff over a year ago. At first, there was a total of seven applicants for the position. After a closed-door meeting – now ruled illegal—the Convention pared that total to two. How that happened, we will never know, as to this day, the deciding factors remain hidden. Thus, like some black hole, “anything inside this surface is completely hidden from observers outside” as they successfully “crossed the surface” to a point of no return.
Once the black hole swallowed up all public knowledge as to how the Convention eliminated five applicants from those expressing interest, they made their final vote (also deemed illegal) and selected the present occupant, who was, as most readers know, removed from office following a year of legal manuevering. That placed the county in a situation where they had to, like just over a year ago, appoint a sheriff to serve until the next election.
Left with several choices, as provided to them by the county’s attorney, the Convention could simply reconstruct the appointment process as conducted a year back, excepting for the hidden pieces, which would be conducted on the up and up this time, or, they could declare “a new day” and create a new process wholley different from the original. Ultimately, this is what they chose to do… or did they?
Shining the light into the dark corners… In the NH Supreme Court ruling in our Right to Know lawsuit involving the illegal appointment of an Interim Sheriff by the County Convention (comprised of the elected House members of the county), the Honorable Court wrote, in part, that "[P]ublic knowledge of the considerations upon which governmental action … Read more
That’s what the two plaintiff’s in the ongoing Belknap County Sheriff appointment/ Right-to-Know law debacle have been called in a anonymously-written and mailed warning letter received over the weekend. (It has been turned over to the Gilford PD, which has opened an active investigation.)
Photo of copied envelope and contents which included a clipped Laconia Daily Sun newspaper headline, with the our names underlined, and a hand-written note. (original mat’s. at GPD)
"Rabble- rousers and publicity seekers! Back (?) off!!
In addition to this piece of mail that could be considered threatening, a lot has happened regarding this matter since we last updated this story here on the ‘Grok. As reported in this prior posting, fresh on the heels of a stinging rebuke by the NH Supreme Court, the County Convention decided to throw caution to the wind and, instead of simply conducting an open "redo" of the process as created (and, subsequently followed with the open and transparent appointment of a new County Registrar), re-appointed the vacated occupant to the position with no discussion other than concerns over the money he wasn’t getting paid while not serving as sheriff. Wrote New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader) reporter Nancy West last Sunday,
Two citizens whose New Hampshire Supreme Court argument resulted in Belknap County Sheriff Craig Wiggin being taken off the job during Laconia Motorcycle Week say the Belknap County Convention ignored the high-court ruling by returning Wiggin to work last week.
Tom Tardif of Laconia and Douglas Lambert of Gilford, both Republican activists, plan to ask the Superior Court tomorrow to stay Wiggin’s appointment and ultimately to vacate the position — again — at least until the County Convention repeats the entire application process and publicly votes on the appointee.
The Supreme Court earlier vacated the position because lawmakers had appointed Wiggin by secret ballot during a public session, in violation of the state’s right-to-know law.
And indeed, last Monday we filed a motion to the Superior Court for Clarification, Stay, and Cost (see full text at end of this post).
It was immediately following our discussion with the Clerk of the Court that things got dicey. As reported in the Citizen newspaper,
The story of our ongoing Right to Know lawsuit regarding the illegal appointment of the Sheriff of Belknap County made the front page of today’s New Hampshire Sunday News (Union Leader). And yes, as you will find out when reading the article, the Republican-dominated Belknap County Convention, fresh on the heels of a … Read more
.
.
"Curses… Foiled AGAIN!" Perp: Rep James Pilliod (RINO-Belmont)
Perp: Rep Fran Wendleboe (Faux-conservative, New Hampton)
Now that the New Hampshire Supreme Court has validated the case for the public’s “Right-to-Know” with regards to the appointment of persons to fill vacant elected positions at the county level, nay, at ALL levels of government, there are some points worth pondering.
First, a few facts for those not quite familiar with the steps leading to the removal of the Belknap County Sheriff just in time for Bike Week… Number one, none of this needed to happen. Following the 2006 closed-door appointment of Commissioner Long by the County Convention (comprised of the 18 elected NH House members of the districts of the county) to fill the vacancy created with the passing of Gordon Bartlett, many people raised a hue and cry due to the secret process employed.
You would have thought that, given the numerous letters printed in the local papers along with critical op-ed pieces published in several newspapers expressing dismay, they would have learned their lesson. But, no— not the bunch from Belknap! When another opportunity came to do it right—this time with the appointment of the Sheriff—they thumbed their noses at the people of the county and did it the way they did before: behind closed doors. Why would they do this? Why, despite the fact that they had to know the heat they would again take for conducting the appointment of a person to fill an elected position, did they choose the same controversial route? One word: arrogance.
What other conclusion can a person draw? The members of the County Convention knew that their actions would certainly cause great distress among certain watchdogs and observers of the local political scene, and yet they did what they did anyway. Almost immediately following the (now invalidated) appointment of the sheriff, two members did speak out. One, Beth Arsenault, smelling a rat, abstained from the vote in the first place, and another, Judie Reever, quickly recognized the error of her participation and wrote an apology letter that was published in all the local papers.
DUGGAN, J. In these consolidated appeals, the petitioners, Douglas Lambert and Thomas A. Tardif, challenge: (1) the failure of the Trial Court (Mohl, J.) to invalidate the appointment of Craig Wiggin to the office of Belknap County sheriff by respondent Belknap County Convention (Convention); and (2) the trial court’s denial of their request for documents from respondents Stephen H. Nedeau, the Convention’s chairperson, and Angela A. Bell, the Convention’s record keeper. See RSA ch. 91-A (2001 & Supp. 2007). We hold that the appointment of Wiggin must be invalidated because the Convention was required to fill the vacancy in public session rather than by secret ballot. See RSA 91-A:2, II, :8, II (Supp. 2007). We further hold that the petitioners must be afforded access to the documents relating to the candidates’ applications for the vacancy, see RSA 91-A:4, I (Supp. 2007), but remand for consideration of whether certain personal information that may be in those documents requires redaction. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
This is the best part:
Curses. Foiled AGAIN!!
Following on the heels of the recent declaration by NH’s DRA that Belknap County must indeed, as outlined by former Laconia Mayor Thomas A Tardif and yours truly, accept the default budget thanks to their mishandling of the process, there is yet more trouble for Belknap County…
From today’s Citizen newspaper (Laconia):
County Postpones Thursday Meeting
LACONIA — The Belknap County legislative delegation was slated to vote on the salaries of elected officials on Thursday, but the meeting was canceled.
Some members of the County Convention said they were unaware of why the meeting was suddenly called off, but referred to a letter sent to Delegation Clerk Rep. David Russell, R-Gilmanton, earlier in the week by Doug Lambert and Tom Tardif. The letter demanded that the delegation cancel its meeting because they said it was noticed incorrectly.
Lambert and Tardif maintained that, contradictory to state law, the meeting was not posted seven days before it was slated to be held and they claimed that Russell should have been the noticing authority listed on the advertisement, rather than the delegation chair.
The document is the latest in a long line of challenges Lambert and Tardif have directed toward the way the delegation is handling its meeting and reads, "we are perplexed at the continual procedural failures".
Remember, the County Convention is comprised of the delegation of NH House members from Belknap County… the ones who make the law. How long will this continue?
Here is the full text of the letter we sent:
AT 7:00 pm, the chairman of the Belknap County Convention gavelled the meeting to order. He then announced that due to ongoing factors involving the NH Department of Revenue Administration and Health and Human Services, the meeting scheduled to pass a so-called "supplemental budget" was cancelled. He gavelled the meeting adjourned. It lasted a total of about 30 seconds.
"Curses! Foiled again…"
Given the facts as they are, and given the requirements of the law and the probability of legal action should this matter continue its present course, the most expedient action the Belknap County Convention can take is to do nothing and post a notice to cancel the intended meeting for Tuesday March 13, 2008.
While we’re unsure whether our letters and media attention were the reason, or the fact that the chairman of the Winnisquam School District Budget Committee re-raised the same alarms we sounded last week at the public hearing regarding totals that didn’t add up, or the news today that Laconia City Manager Cabanel discovered that promised state monies might not materialize, the fact remains that the Belknap County Convention was once again thwarted before they embarked on yet another scheme that promised nothing but legal troubles as a result. Tonight’s action of cancelling the meeting was one of the smartest decisions made by the Belknap County Convention in quite a long time.
Here is a letter we dispatched this afternoon to the County Attorney that seeks to further explain the points raised yesterday in our pleas to the various regulatory agencies:
As promised, here is more on the ongoing mess the Belknap County finds itself in regarding their faulty budget practices.
“Unlawful conduct by elected officials erodes the important trust that citizens expect and deserve from all public officials” ~ NH AG Kelly A. Ayotte March 11, 2008, NH Union Leader regarding $5000 town treasurer theft charges.
The following letter was sent to the NH Attorney General, the NH Dept. of Revenue Administration, Belknap County Treasurer and the county’s bond counsel:
May 12, 2008
Ms. Kelly A. Ayotte, Attorney General
Department of Justice
33 Capitol Street
Concord, NH 03301-6397
Subject: Belknap County Appropriations and Supplemental Appropriation
Notice per RSA 24:14-(a)Dear Attorney General Ayotte:
Belknap County’s Convention is once again attempting to appropriate money– this time a Supplemental Appropriation. And once again, the Commissioners are the masterminds of yet another procedural grievance. The Commissioners have requested a supplemental increase of their original Dec 1, 2007 Proposed Appropriations for 2008, now the Default budget.
As of 25 April 2008, the Conventions caused a “Public Hearing Notice” for the commissioners to present their request for a supplemental appropriation, amounting to $965,294.00 over the FY 2007 budget, an increase to $26,620,211. However, the actual Appropriation increase can only be $447,974.00 because the default budget is $26,172,237.00
The Law does not require a “Public Hearing” in order for the Commissioners to present a request for a Supplemental Budget. However, it does require the Convention to have a public hearing before it can appropriate for new purposes, citing the source of the money required per RSA 24:14-(a).
However, the Convention’s unnecessary notice of a public hearing for the Commissioners’ presentation indicates intent to have a second general meeting on May 13, 2008 at which it will entertain public input and then will vote on said request. Therefore, the public hearing was simply an information presentation of a desired supplemental appropriation.
Once again, the normal course of action then for this coming Tuesday was not and will not be in compliance with state laws. Accordingly, your individual or collective review is once again being requested. Please allow us to explain:
The laws governing our society at all levels are both complicated yet simple when you begin to contemplate their meanings. Along with setting the rules on nearly everything that exists within a supposedly civilized society purporting to be based on what’s right and wrong, they also exist to provide limits as to how much a government can intrude into peoples’ personal lives, and the behavior under which it’s required to adhere.
Ask yourself whether when it comes to following the myriad of rules and regulations and complying with what’s required to be filled out– as an individual: IRS returns, license renewals, etcetera, or as a business entity: IRS returns, permit renewals, corporate filings—the government ever allows you to “almost” do it their way. What happens when you make a mistake? What happens when you exceed the posted speed limit? Do you get a pass because “that’s how you’ve always done it?” Of course you don’t. Generally, when a citizen violates the law, he or she pays a penalty.
But what about when the government itself breaks the law? Who pays a price? You know, like what citizens must do when they are caught in violation. Of course we all know the answer in most instances: “Fine for thee, but not for me.”
A ten year employee serving as the Belknap County Administrator and Finance Director has been fired. While the reasons have not been yet made public, one cannot assume this has happened because of anything good. Recall that this is the same administrator that was unable to answer my simple question back in March at the “public hearing” for the county budget. Me: “How many employees are we paying for with this budget, and please give me the breakdown between union and non-union.” The answer (caustically): “How am I supposed to know?”
Since that time, the county has found itself with a default budget over $400,000 less than what the County Convention had thought they approved, and had to undo a series of mistakes made in the process of borrowing money. All thanks to a little study and persistence on the part of a couple of citizens who discovered that Belknap County has an ongoing problem in that much of what it does fails to comply with the law. Some may say that this is no big deal, simply mere technical violations that in the end become “much ado about nothing.” If it ended there, perhaps some could make that case, though I would disagree.
Let’s not forget the County Convention’s closed-door procedure for the selecting of the Sheriff, a County Commissioner, and at least one Gunstock Commissioner, all using secret ballots—a practice that has since been ruled illegal. These are our elected officials acting on our behalf that are failing to follow the law. While some may claim that none of it is malicious, or causes any great harm in the big scheme of things, we don’t really know for sure. A common pattern with all of the violations by the county is that they all involve citizen access—or, more specifically, the denial of such.
