LiveFreeAndComply.org

Tamworth Selectman and New Hampshire State Representative John Roberts was asked tonight to follow up on his previous statement that the Selectmen would publicly review their unlawful and unethical threat to fire town employees who carry firearms for self defense on town property in October when Selectman Abugelis returned to the board. Tonight was the Selectmen’s last meeting for October, with Selectman Tom Abugelis at his third October Selectmen’s get-together in a row. Roberts responded that he really meant that the policy will be reviewed in October of 2010, thus making clear his intentions to side with inaction and against peaceful and responsible gun owners in town. Classy, John.

Update: Selectmen schedule November meeting to discuss, and use that meeting to put it off for another two weeks. When prodded by two members of the public to release their apparently secretive legal brief on their plan of attack with regard to the employee policy, Abugelis stated “maybe”, and Roberts said the board keeps all briefs that their taxpayer funded attorney writes away from public eyes.  Roberts stated that he wants to put the issue behind him…er, next meeting.

Club Motorsports, FOCUS, and the Town of Tamworth took their battle to the New Hampshire Supreme Court once again. Despite the conflict of interest that one might envision when trying to solve one’s problems with government via the government court system, recent cases continue to stack up in favor of CMI and property owners in Tamworth.

The bottom line is that either CMI will be back starting fresh with the Planning Board if the trial court’s decision is upheld (the Supreme Court’s decision is pending as of this writing), or they’re in for being tied up in court even longer. On its face, it would seem that government-control types win either way, and the Planning Board will simply do a better and more thorough job of hosing property owners such as CMI the second time through. That said, it’s clear that CMI sees the recent trial court ruling as a victory (words like “unlawful” and “unreasonable” are stated in the court order with regard to the Planning Board), and the recent Supreme Court appeal has shown their opposition to be fretting about the “logisitical nightmare” and “impossibility” involved in the Planning Board complying with the trial court’s decision.

Planning Board member David Little was present for the oral arguments given at the NH Supreme Court, ostensibly there to support Club Motorsports in their defense of their right to utilize their property, as he himself has gone above and beyond even CMI and engaged in some brave and noble civil disobedience, openly flouting the town government and ignoring the Tamworth Wetlands Conservation Ordinance on his own property. [Just kidding folks, Dave regularly speaks out in support of the TWCO and gleefully participates in the enforcement of it. (Well, with as much glee as Dave has in him, which doesn't strike one as very much.) A bit of a double standard for Planning Board members, eh?]

Also of note is that for one of the largest matters of litigation that the town has ever seen, the town was not represented in front of the Supreme Court. Richard Sager, the town’s attorney, either intentionally or through ineptitude, reportedly didn’t get paperwork filed properly with the court and the attorney for FOCUS was the sole representation for the town – seems to be not quite on the up-and-up to let an attorney with separate clients and interests be the sole representation in front of the NH Supreme Court in a suit that the town is named in. [Political joke of the day: What do you call a lawyer with an I.Q. of 50? ....Senator.]

What this all serves to illustrate is the lengthy and expensive disaster for local families and businesses that one small land-use ordinance, such as Tamworth’s Wetlands Conservation Ordinance, causes in the hands of a Planning Board. Lot line rearrangements and Tamworth’s ecosystem would get along just fine without their wise “planning” every month, and did for many decades when Tamworth didn’t have a Planning Board. The Planning Board clearly doesn’t think they have enough power and control since they are mobilizing yet again to get more land use regulations pushed through this year; the abuse of CMI is a shining example of why that ought not happen.

You know things aren’t looking bright when the lead-in to a project scoping meeting includes the Selectmen saying the only means of pursuing the project not up for discussion is throwing the towel in entirely, apparently fretting that some residents saw the project as an expensive boondoggle. This was followed up by Selectman John Roberts stating at the meeting that if Phase 2 of the Chocorua Village Project goes the way that Phase 1 did, there ought not be a Phase 3.

One might reasonably wonder what the upsides are to what sounds to be a veritable quagmire of pending lawsuits and contractor problems on a $3+ million dollar taxpayer funded project. Why, safety of course! Next time you take a drive through scenic and placid Chocorua Village, take note of the near bloodbath caused by vehicles careening around turns, 18-wheelers blazing through at 70 MPH, and little children getting mowed down by irresponsible leaf-peepers and town’s folk. The solution? Narrow the road, add twists and bends to make it wind all the more, and plant shrubbery so drivers can’t see around those new curves – this was seriously the focus of the safety improvements that came up at the meeting, with the stated goal of slowing down drivers. Make Chocorua Village a true safety hazard, drivers will fear for life and limb, and they’ll slow down. If speed is what’s causing the staggering body count piling up from traffic accidents in Chocorua, it would seem that one could splurge on quite a few radar guns and speed limit signs for a lot less money than three million dollars.

Sidewalks were also a hot topic of the safety discussion – here we have something that might actually help save pedestrians from the real-life game of Frogger apparently taking place in Chocorua Village. Except we won’t. Turns out that when the federal government takes your and your neighbor’s money via the income tax and redistributes it, it comes with strings attached. In this case, the caveat is that the town taxpayers are required to keep the sidewalks clear through winter. Seems that this is a bit of an expensive endeavor recurring year after year, involving collecting and trucking the snow off of the sidewalks. In defense of the Selectmen, they did state they don’t want to burden Tamworth’s residents with this cost. It’s still a question as to whether it’s 4 feet of snow (multiplied by approximately a mile of sidewalks) that would need to be tended to, or 16 feet of snow that the snowplows move off the road onto the sidewalks. The latest plan that the Selectmen and the State have decided to pursue is not having formal raised sidewalks, but rather surfacing the road shoulders with a different texture or material, hoping this will skirt the federal snow removal requirements, and still allow for “sidewalks”.

After a meeting with the State regarding the project, the Selectmen said it looks like it’s going to be the 2011 building season before any work actually gets done on the ground owing to the sheer volume of bureacracy between the local, state, and federal government that is involved in approving funding for the project – much to the horror of members of the Chocorua Community Association present at the meeting, who were interested in seeing work happen much sooner.

Seems like a mess.

The Board of Selectmen decided to halve the frequency of the meetings they hold, and administrator Cassandra Pearce will be absent from the office for the next 6 weeks, thus halving the labor resources available to conduct the town government’s business.

The Planning Board submitted in their 2010 budget request a need for $21,000 for their legal expenses, or rather, a whopping 60% of their entire $35,070 budget request. Not a bad system to be able to take money from local families and businesses and use it to defend their all-knowing “planning” when those same families and businesses object to their wise “planning” and take them to court over it.

[Update: Town attorney collecting 60% of the Planning Board's budget can't even make it to a Supreme Court case to stick up for the Planning Board's "unlawful" and "unreasonable" actions.]

The new Superintendent of government schools for SAU 13, Jay McIntire, after introducing himself at tonight’s Selectmen’s meeting as one of the more highly paid taxpayer-funded employees, stated that as part of his new job, he was looking to cut costs at the administrative level and find a new, more economical home for the SAU’s operations. As long as we’re going to have government schools, they might as well be slightly less expensive – good for Jay so far. Upon Selectman Farnum’s suggestion that a portion of the local sinkhole of taxpayer money, the K.A. Brett elementary school, could possibly be used for the SAU’s operations, Superintendent McIntire stated that it would be far too easy for a child’s parent, displeased with something or another to do with their child’s education, to be able to go right to the Superintendent’s office down the hall if the principal couldn’t or wouldn’t tend to the parent’s concerns.

If Jay has unhappy parents at his schools, and he apparently doesn’t fancy dealing with their problems, it would seem to be a simple solution for everyone involved if parents could keep their earnings taken from them to fund the government school system as well as Jay’s paycheck, and instead send their child to a private or home school that would perhaps meet their needs better. Not every family can afford to be required to pay for a government school as well as a private school at the same time, and thus unhappy parents without extra funds are left to send their kids to a school whose Superintendent objects to having to deal with them at their convenience.

Update: Superintendent McIntire responds, stating lack of financial freedom for parents in school choice is unfortunate, and he really doesn’t object to parents… More »

5+ 8+ weeks, two five Selectmen’s meetings, and still no removal of Tamworth’s unlawful and unethical written threat to fire employees packing heat, so to speak, for self defense on town property.

Most recently, Selectman Willie Farnum stated that he still thinks the town policy is a legitimate and enforceable rule. When asked if he and the Board of Selectmen were willing and interested in pursuing defending their disarmament of New Hampshire residents through lengthy and expensive legal proceedings at the taxpayer’s expense, Farnum stated he would not be willing to go this route and the matter is apt to “be resolved in favor” of peaceful and responsible gun toting town employees. Farnum continued that had he known it was going to be such a contentious issue, he “probably wouldn’t have put that in there”. Farnum stated, rather vigorously, that the Selectmen have been busy with other matters for the past 5+ 8+ weeks and that’s why they haven’t taken care of the problem yet: busy with urgent government tasks including seizing a woman’s property from her, paying the town’s “welfare director”, and many tax levies to sign off on – give those Selectmen a break, they’ve got a lot on their plate for goodness sake!

Selectman John Roberts did not stick around after the meeting for the discussion, nor has he stated anything further on the matter publicly since his initial comments expounding upon how he views gun owners, who have never caused a problem, as a threat and a liability to the town, and at the subsequent Selectmen’s meeting, stating the matter would be reviewed at some vague point in the future. [Update: John Roberts reportedly stated to a reporter for the Carroll County Independent that the Selectmen would take up the issue again when Tom Abugelis returned back to being a full-time Selectman in October - as of this writing, it's October and Tom Abugelis is back at tonight's Selectmen's meeting] It is our understanding of town politics that folks inclined to vote for Willie Farnum would respond with incredulity as to why anyone, especially town employees, would need a gun at all. However, it would seem that John Roberts would have the most to lose, from a political perspective, by alienating his voters who have a sincere objection to politicians in positions of power and control that see gun owners as a threat and a liability, especially as he is willing to speak out publicly in support of restricting those gun owners in circumstances that he and the town government think they have control over.

What happens if Selectman Farnum, Selectman Roberts, and Police Chief Poirier think they control more than just town employees on town property in the future, as has shown to be the case in other big-government jurisdictions? Would peaceful and responsible gun owners be any less of a threat and a liability in their eyes? This is the crux of the issue, and if the Selectmen and Police Chief are going to hold the view that peaceful and responsible gun owners are a threat and a liability, they ought to at least think twice in the future about acting and speaking out upon these odd views – removing their unlawful employee policy would be a good first step towards showing they understand resident’s objections to their negative view of gun owners.  Dodging the matter Reflecting upon the matter for 5+ 8+ weeks is a politician’s way of handling issues: either stick to your guns, fellows, and publicly state that the unlawful policy will be staying on the books, or bite the bullet, and remove it.

Recently, an attractive young woman came before the Selectmen to ask for their help in solving some paperwork issues that her bank requested of the town. Whether or not the Selectmen ought to have a role in her private matter is a valid discussion to be had, however, the newsworthiness of her dramatic monologue more pertains to her having stated she had no prior experience with town politics and the Selectmen; we would surmise no more than an hour spent on the phone with town secretary Cassandra Pearce and ten minutes spent in front of the Selectmen inspired the following observations on her part, which is what a lot of folks have felt like imparting to them over the years, no doubt:

“I’d like to say, that as a resident of Tamworth, that I’m pretty disappointed.”

“And her [referring to Cassandra Pearce]: incredibly rude of you to laugh at somebody while they’re standing up here. I don’t know how your mother raised you, but it’s polite to treat people the way you want to be treated. Very, very rude.”

“I think that you guys are supposed to reflect the residents of this town and you don’t. The residents of this town have been amazing since I’ve been here. You three [Farnum, Roberts, Pearce], on the other hand, have not. They are helpful, they are kind, they are polite, they are understanding – and they span every generation, young couples that bought their homes the same time I did, and older people who live next door to me: unbelievable people. You three, on the other hand, do not do a good job of representing the people of this town.” – Well, on the other hand, when most of the constituents the Selectmen see are those that are avidly involved in local government, various town committee’s, and such, rather than those folks who are busy with 9-5 jobs, family, and other more productive endeavors: they probably really do think their views and actions represent a lot of Tamworth residents.

“…and then your secretary, which, by the way [to Cassandra Pearce], you are just a secretary – you don’t run this town – decided to laugh…that’s not the way you treat residents, and that’s not the way you treat people. Your parents should have raised you better.” – This is at least the second time in recent history that Cassandra has shown an odd sense of bemusement towards a family’s problems.

Willie Farnum: “Well, some you win, some you don’t.” John Roberts: “I guess we didn’t win that one.”

The problem lays not with Farnum, Roberts, and Pearce in particular, but in a system that gives people you may think are rude and obnoxious (or even people you may think are wonderful) control through the force of government over your actions, money, and property.

Tamworth Selectmen Willie Farnum and John Roberts chose to keep in place unlawful and unethical firearms restrictions in town at this evening’s Selectman’s meeting, stating that they will be reviewing the town policy at some point in the future and would not be taking any action on the matter at the meeting. Tamworth Police Chief Dan Poirier, an avid participant in last meeting’s denunciation of peaceful and responsible firearms owners, had a conveniently scheduled vacation and was not present.

This is the second meeting in a row that the Selectmen have been given an opportunity to simply say “Oops, that’s an unlawful and unethical policy, let’s fix that”, and to hopefully apologize for their public statements indicating that they view responsible armed folks, who have never caused a problem, as people who are to be treated as a public threat and a liability to the town. Instead, the Selectmen resorted to the only means of governance that they are apparently comfortable with: 1+ hours of discussions closed to the public on the matter, “future discussions”, “forthcoming policy review”, and the like.

For a Selectboard so concerned about some phantom firearms liability that has never actually occurred in town, Selectmen Willie Farnum and John Roberts are sure not in a hurry to resolve their actual liability problems [1] [2] with their unlawful firearms restrictions. For a change, guys, stop inviting lawsuits and causing problems for people who aren’t bothering anyone: simply remove the employee policy.

Following up on: [Town Government: We Don't Like Good People With Guns]

Seeing as the Tamworth Selectmen and Police Chief responded so negatively to mere citizens objecting to their illegal enforcement of unlawful anti-gun regulations in town, prominent state gun rights group Pro-Gun New Hampshire has now joined the fight against Selectmen Willie Farnum and John Roberts along with Police Chief Dan Poirier.

In an excellent letter to the town bureaucrats, CC’ed to the NH Department of Safety and the NH Attorney General’s office, the folks at PGNH remind the Selectmen and Police Chief yet again that their rule prohibiting firearms on town property when carried by town employees is not only unlawful, but that they may personally be held criminally and civilly liable for enforcement of it under RSA 643:1, Official Oppression.

Update: Primary legislative sponsor of RSA 159:26 and former NH state trooper writes to town Selectmen regarding their anti-gun rules.

Hats off to Sam Cohen, Elbert Bicknell, and Atty. Evan Nappen, as well as the rest of the fine people at Pro-Gun New Hampshire, for lending their name, time, and energy to help keep the town bureaucrats at bay on this issue. We’ll see what the Selectmen and Police Chief do at their next meeting – they’re going to be hard pressed to stick to their guns, pun intended, on this one.

Update 2: Tamworth Selectmen remove employee policy, Pro-Gun NH declares “Reason and Law Defeat Prejudice in Tamworth“