A White Paper Documenting Criminal Trespassing on
Private Property
by the Town of New Boston on September 18, 2001 Copyright © 2001 by DCG - All Rights Reserved
This document may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form or by any means, electronic, graphic or otherwise without prior written permission. COMPLAINT & INCIDENT REPORT
[ HTML links are in BLUE
]
This series of Web Pages highlights one of
numerous criminal acts
committed by agents and officials of the Town of New Boston. None of the facts in this paper have been refuted by the town. These crimes were committed when the town confiscated
the private property of two individuals to build an illegal road. The
town built this road across this tract of private property, flooded
their basement, and destroyed their property value without benefit of
any easement or deed, and especially without proper notice and ignoring
the due process of law. The people who conspired to cover-up these crimes,
and continue this conspiracy were selectmen Gordon Carlstrom
and David Woodbury, town administrator Burton
Reynolds, tabloid editor Brandy Mitroff,
road agent Lee Murray, highway department employee
Gordon Terry, police chief Gregory
Begin, and former selectman Wilbert Dodge.
The town has never apologized for these crimes. Eventually, the property
owners were forced to sell their historic home and move out-of-town
at a great financial loss.
Official Town of New Boston, New Hampshire Policy
On Tuesday, September 18, 2001 the Town of New Boston Road Agent Lee
Murray, operating on Murray's policy to NOT COMPLY with
the State of New Hampshire's "Dig Safe" law for the ninth
time in three years, and trespassing on the same private property for
the second time in three years, caused a substantial metal post to be
drilled into the ground with a sledge hammer directly above five main
line utility conduits, one of which was designed to house a 7,300 volt
electric cable. This was done by Murray on private property without
permission of the Board of Selectmen or the private property owners.
A little over a year ago, on the same road, Murray's typical lack of
planning, scheduling and adherence of the law was cause for a LIVE
7,300 volt electric cable to fall onto the roof of a school bus
which endangered the lives of five people, including three small school
children. A written complaint (the
Interrogatories) was filed with Board of Selectmen members Chairman
Gordon Carlstrom and David Woodbury on October 5, 2001 demanding, in
part, that the Town Administrator Burton Reynolds comply with the Town's
Personnel Policy Manual by documenting the incident and taking appropriate
personnel action regarding Murray's illegal and improper activities.
The Selectmen and the Town Administrator have refused to do either thus
have decided to ignore the Town's Personnel Policy Manual, in addition
to tolerating Murray breaking the law without a warning, reprimand or
a suspension (including the school bus incident). The Selectmen and
the Town Administrator have also refused to issue an apology to the
private property owners and are trying to cover the whole matter up
by simply declaring the matter "closed". The matter is clearly not closed.
This whole episode is documented on the following web pages:" "DIG BEFORE YOU CALL" - SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 Analysis, Responses, Details and Findings of Fact:
(click on items below)
Go to Section (1) SEPTEMBER
18, 2001 - INCIDENT DETAILSGo to Section (2) INTERROGATORIES TO THE SELECTMEN - OCTOBER 5, 2001 Go to Section (3) DEMAND FOR INFORMATION - OCTOBER 22, 2001 Go to Section (4) INTERROGATORIES #1 THROUGH #5 Go to Section (5) INTERROGATORIES #11 - THE TOWN'S HANDLING OF THE SEPTEMBER 18, 2001 INCIDENT Go to Section (6) INTERROGATORIES #7, #9, #12 and REYNOLDS' PARTIAL RESPONSES Go to Section (7) INTERROGATORIES #10, #11, #15, #16 and REYNOLDS' PARTIAL RESPONSES Go to Section (8) INTERROGATORIES #8, #13, #14, #16 - STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES vs. THE LAW Go to Section (9) THIS IS A CONTINUING CONSPIRACY DATING BACK TO APRIL 1999 Go to Section (10) GOOD v. EVIL - THE ONLY CHOICE LEFT |
|
1) The Town has an employee organization chart identifying the chain of command. Town Administrator Burton Reynolds reports to the Board of Selectmen. Road Agent Lee Murray (Murray) is head of the Highway Department and reports directly to Reynolds. Gordon Terry (Terry) of the Highway Department reports to Murray. Police Chief Gregory Begin (Chief Begin) is head of the Police Department and reports directly to Reynolds. Reynolds is largely responsible, by direct action, or by making recommendations to the Board, for the disciplining of Town employees under the Town's Personnel Policy Manual (the Manual), Chapter 4-3 and Chapter 2. Brandy Mitroff (Mitroff) is the editor of the monthly issued New Boston Bulletin tabloid and a member of the Town's Finance Committee which is appointed by the Board. 2) The installation crew of three people, lead by Terry, entered and trespassed upon the Homestead Property with their vehicle and their persons to drill a metal post into the ground with a sledge hammer in violation of the "Dig Safe" law and a signed agreement by the Board with the Homestead Property owners. 3) Terry knew the private property owners were at home, and that a selectman was one of the property owners, but Terry did not elect to talk to the selectman or ask permission of the private property owners to enter upon their property. 4) Terry's crew, laughing the whole time, quickly drilled a trespassing metal post into the ground with a sledge hammer, performed other tasks, then swiftly drove away while a person rushed out the front door to meet them. Terry saw a person running from the home, but did not stop, so there was no way possible for this person to discuss the matter with Terry. 5) Terry subsequently reported the trespassing metal post, and other materials, missing over an unsecured radio channel to Murray which was cause for the police to become involved. 6) Terry's radio message to Murray did not include the fact that he and his crew trespassed on private property to place the trespassing metal post. 7) Terry has made no attempt to contact the Homestead Property owners since September 18, 2001, or to correct the record, nor has Terry made an apology for trespassing on the their private property or for drilling of a metal post into their property with a sledge hammer. 8) This activity resulted in a communication to be sent to Mitroff of the New Boston Bulletin and she asked the Police Chief why an arrest did not occur. |
(2) INTERROGATORIES TO THE SELECTMEN - OCTOBER 5, 2001 The United States Constitution and the New Hampshire Constitution protect citizens who own private property from any takings of said property by the government or its agents without due process of law. The Civil Rights Act prohibits the government and its agents from using their official authority without color of law. On Tuesday, September 18, 2001 the Town of New Boston and its agents, without color of law, unlawfully seized and damaged the property of 252 Clark Hill Road. These facts are not in dispute. This is the second time in three years that the town has done this to these property owners. In a telephone call to Town Administrator Burton Reynolds on October 5, 2001, he refused to document the details of the incident or identify in writing who performed these illegal activities. Thus this deliberate non-responsiveness gives rise to the notion that there is an ensuing cover-up of wrongdoing. Due to the civil rights and constitutional implications, we demand answers to the following questions immediately [click on each topic for details]:
|
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The Board has promulgated no regulations as provided by the New Hampshire, Revised Statutes Annotated (RSAs) Chapter 41:11 to locate or place traffic signs along public highways. Thus the Board has retained the sole authority to specifically locate on the ground and/or direct the placement of traffic signs along public highways. 2) There is no RSA that allows the Board to regulate or enforce traffic signs placed on private property without permission of the owners. 3) Murray had ordered the Materials for future installation on Clark Hill Road which were received by the Highway Department approximately 30 days before September 18, 2001. Murray did not obtain prior permission from the Board to specifically locate or place the Materials on Clark Hill Road. However, on Tuesday, September 18, 2001, Murray, acting with no authority from the Board, directed his subordinates to locate and place the Materials along the Clark Hill Road corridor in the Town, including directing one of these metal posts to be drilled into the ground on the Homestead Property without permission from the private property owners. Murray did not obtain prior approval from the private property owners to drill a metal post into their property. 4) The Board has not designated or directed, by any vote, anyone to locate, place or install, by any specific installation location on the ground, any of the Materials on the Town's Clark Hill Road corridor and there is no Board vote of record authorizing the installation of any of the Materials on the Homestead Property. 5) The placement of the Materials on private property was, in fact an unlawful entry onto another's land wrongfully, or a trespass, and an unlawful injury to the private property and rights of the property owner with actual force which ignored the due process requirements of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution, and the New Hampshire, Constitution, and Article 19 of the Bill of Rights, and several state laws that prohibit Towns from seizing or confiscating private property. According to common law, and common sense, trespassing objects are subject to immediate removal by property owners. 6) RSA Chapter 236, Highway Regulation, Protection and Control Regulations, Section 236:6 When Not Erected by Officials; Penalty., states: "If any person, except a public officer or official or a person acting under his direction or order, erects on any public highway a stop sign, traffic device, or traffic signal, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." Since Murray was a public official, but was acting on his own without permission from the Board to place any such Materials, Murray would likely be subject to criminal penalties, and other civil rights sanctions, and a variety of other tort claims. 7) On the day prior to September 18, 2001, a selectman who resides at the Homestead Property called for the removal of Reynolds for cause. Reynolds and Murray stated on September 20, 2001 that the selection of September 18, 2001 to install the previously unscheduled Materials on Clark Hill Road was just a coincidence to the selectman calling for the removal of Reynolds the previous day. 8) There are numerous other Incidents over the last three years where the Town deliberately violated the same laws, on the same property, without reprimand to any Town employee, including Reynolds and Murray, which are violations of the Manual. |
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Neither Murray or Reynolds, at any time had asked the private property owners anything about the Incident up until September 20, 2001 nor had they generated an Incident report of the Town's illegal and improper activities. 2) Woodbury and Carlstrom inappropriately discussed the Incident together in an illegal meeting of the Board, and decided that Woodbury should call one of the property owners about the Town's missing property, instead of more appropriately demanding that Reynolds perform an investigation of the Incident and write a report as is customarily done in such matters in most towns under the same circumstances. 3) Woodbury apparently was not advised by Reynolds or Murray or Terry that this was partly about four metal posts (the Materials), one of which was (a) illegally drilled into the ground on private property, and (b) had no legal standing, and (c) violated an agreement signed by the Town, and (d) that several state laws had been broken by Murray et al. 4) However, Reynolds did discuss the matter at the Town Hall lunch table with numerous other Town employees who had no need to know about the Incident and Reynolds lunchtime discussions included the notion of arresting a selectman concerning the Incident. One person was very exited about this possibility. 5) Woodbury demanded first to meet with one of the property owners at their Homestead Property. Woodbury later demanded a meeting with one of the property owners at the Board's office on Thursday September 20, 2001 at 9:30 AM. Both private property owners dispatched themselves to this meeting at which time Woodbury deliberately caused one of the property owners to leave the meeting. Woodbury, counter to the expressed wishes of the two property owners, and not in enough time for the other property owner return to participate, Woodbury inappropriately engaged the other property owner in a discussion. 6) Carlstrom participated in this discussion via telephone, so this constituted a meeting of the Board. 7) Woodbury was approached with a single relevant question from one of the private property owners, and Woodbury said "I'm not on trial here". Woodbury refused to discuss the Incident further. Carlstrom was asked if all should meet to resolve the Incident. Carlstrom decided not to discuss the matter any further. Thus, the private property owner left the meeting. 8) Woodbury and Carlstrom had no written information or substantive evidence about the Incident from either Reynolds, Murray or Chief Begin. 9) The private property owners, at their initiative, met separately with the Police Chief, Reynolds, and then together with Murray and Reynolds, as part of an investigation by them to collect information and evidence about the Incident. The private property owner undertook their own investigation because Reynolds had not investigated the Incident or prepared a report of the Incident as required by the Personnel Policy Manual, and it was becoming very clear that Reynolds was, in large part, responsible for Incident. 10) The Incident involved a breach of the law. When employees breach the law in the employment of the Town, Reynolds must document "remedial suggestions, date, time, and (the) nature of offense" according to the Manual, Chapter 4-3 and Chapter 2-1-o and 2-1-p, 2-1-q, 2-1-r and/or 2-1-s. 11) Reynolds has consistently refused to document this element of the Incident at all, or take any personnel action unless the Board orders it, which is a serious neglect of duty by Reynolds, and clearly an instance of Reynolds incompetence. 12) Neither Reynolds or Woodbury or Carlstrom put the matter on any agenda after September 18, 2001 for the Board to discuss whether, or not, an Incident report should be prepared, nor has Reynolds elected to produce a report of the Incident, even though the Manual requires it. It was becoming clear with this evidence that a conspiracy to cover up the Incident was now forming. 13) At the September 20, 2001 meeting with Reynolds, he seemed only concerned with interrogating one of the property owners by repeatedly asking who took the Town's Materials, rather than dealing with Murray's illegal activities which set the entire Incident in motion. 14) The property owners, through their private investigation, were able to assemble a large body of facts through discussions with Town officials that were previously unknown to other officials. In the absence of an Incident report by the Town, this document is the only Incident report of record. 15) Armed with this information on September 20, 2001, the property owners, at their initiative, proposed a complete resolution of the matter with Reynolds and Murray, and all agreed to it. However, Reynolds then added another procedural requirement that the Board would need to agree with the mutual solution proposed by the private property owners. The private property owners subsequently attempted to affect agreement with, or a meeting with Woodbury and Carlstrom to agree with the resolution, but, Woodbury and Carlstrom both refused to agree with the resolution, or to call an immediate official meeting to settle the matter. Basically, they decided to ignore a requested resolution of the matter and do nothing. 16) Neither Carlstrom, Woodbury, Murray or Reynolds offered an acknowledgment or an apology to the private property owners for the Town's admitted misdeeds, illegal acts, or Town's part in creating the Incident. |
ANALYSIS & COMMENT: Reynolds completely failed to communicate important matters to his subordinates, failed to train them, and failed to administer his designated responsibilities regarding the various laws, rules, procedures and practices that govern his job. Two of these failures resulted in potentially life-threatening incidents (see Interrogatory #15 and #16). The following documents Reynolds neglect of duty, incompetence, and willful violations of the law: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) The Board and Reynolds signed a special written "View Protection" Agreement (the Agreement) on March 12, 2001, which prohibits the installation of any above ground structures for 275 feet along Clark Hill Road westward from the corner of Clark Hill, Thornton and Cochran Hill Roads, which includes the entire lot frontage of the Homestead Property. 2) According to Murray on September 20, 2001, Reynolds never informed Murray of the Agreement, nor did he give him a copy of the Agreement, even though the Agreement had a direct impact on Murray's responsibilities. If Murray had sought proper permission from the Board for the installation of the Materials, or had Murray been given a copy of the Agreement by Reynolds, Murray said it would have been an absolute certainty that the location selected for the installation of the Materials in front of the Homestead Property would have been identified as a violation of the Agreement and the Town would not have placed the Materials on the Homestead Property. 3) The New Boston Zoning Ordinance defines a Structure as "Anything constructed or erected with a fixed location on the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground." Therefore, it is a fact that if the Town drilled a trespassing metal post into the ground with a sledge hammer, and attached an illegal display surface to this metal post, this is officially defined by the Town as a structure. 4) Reynolds ignored the Town's definition of a structure, and the prohibition of above ground structures in the "View Protection" Agreement, when he stated: "I would not have interpreted the 'no structures' to mean a sign." He was not asked to interpret anything; he should have looked it up. Ignorance of the job or the law or Town rules and regulations is not a defense. 5) As a matter of record, the Town broke many laws and wasted tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on the Clark Hill Road Relocation Project which is the subject of another interesting analysis not presented here. However, Reynolds admitted that this project was one not easily forgotten when he stated "...after all the activity that has taken place on this section of road...". And, Reynolds also admitted that he did not even look at the Agreement when he stated: "Even had we thought to look at the agreement . . ."; Reynolds did not comply with "View Protection" agreements that he knew about because he didn't even research it and it was only six months old. Again, ignorance of the job or the law or Town rules and regulations is not a defense. 6) The Town seized and confiscated a portion of the Homestead Property in April 1999, without written permission, and without due process of law, and built a road on it without any easement or deed, which is a violation of Constitutional law and numerous state laws. 7) The road the Town built over the illegally seized and confiscated property is a trespassing road which has no legal standing as a public highway and the Town has no property rights regarding the trespassing roadway or the Homestead Property. 8) When Reynolds stated "And no one imagined ... that the placement of the sign would be seen as a trespass.", he completely ignored the fact that the placement of a new structure, added to an already trespassing road, is simply an additional trespass, and another breach of the law which demands immediate redress, in addition to the remedying the previous trespass. Again, ignorance of the job or the law or Town rules and regulations is not a defense. 9) Instead, Reynolds ignored his willful breaches of Constitutional and state law, and amazingly shifted the responsibility to his injured parties to remedy the Town's additional breaches of Constitutional and state law, and a breach of the Agreement, when he stated: "I viewed this as a minor matter that a phone call [from the injured parties] would have cleared up.". In short, the Town trespassed once again, but it is up the injured parties to call him and beg for a remedy, which is simply astonishing! 10) The arrogance of Reynolds remark that injured parties are responsible for correcting his errors cannot be understated which reflects Reynolds' (a) dereliction to duty, (b) lack of respect for the law, (c) lack of communication, and (d) incompetence. |
ANALYSIS & COMMENT: The Board's Rules of Procedure (the Rules), regarding inclusion of topics on a Board meeting agenda, require that "All requests shall be in writing, stating the purpose for the agenda item, the parties anticipated to be present, and as much information as possible to permit board review in advance of the meeting." According to Reynolds: "A discussion took place at the selectmen's meeting [September 24, 2001], minutes were taken, and those minutes would reflect the extent of the public discussion." The following is comment to the what actually happened during September 24, 2001 Board meeting: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Most importantly, Reynolds admitted that Town employees "had trespassed and violated the law", yet he did not place the matter on the Board's agenda and Reynolds did not write an Incident report as required by the Manual, nor did he even undertake an investigation. This is a clear and admitted example of dereliction of duty. 2) In addition, before the meeting of September 24, 2001 began, Reynolds knew who planned and placed on private property without proper authorization, and in violation of several laws, and in violation of a contractual agreement, a metal post on private property without permission of the private property owners. Again, the Manual places primary responsibility on Reynolds, for direct or indirect (i.e., recommendations to the Board) personnel actions regarding warnings, suspensions, and terminations. 3) This Incident particularly involved a breach of several laws. When employees breach the law in the employment of the Town, Reynolds must at least document "remedial suggestions, date, time, and (the) nature of offense" according to the Manual, Chapter 4-3 and Chapter 2-1-o and 2-1-p, 2-1-q, 2-1-r and/or 2-1-s. However, Reynolds refused to document the Incident at all, or take any personnel action whatsoever. The Manual clearly states that a "Written Warning [is] a personnel action in which an employee is given written warning by the department head or Town Administrator for a repeated work related offense ... " and a "Suspension [is] an enforced leave of absence imposed by the Town Administrator ... for disciplinary purposes or pending investigation of charges against an employee." 4) Reynolds' failure to document the Incident and/or take appropriate action is a serious neglect of duty, willful violation of the Manual, abuse of Town Regulations, an attempt to use his authority to affect the political action of other Town Official(s), and an act of incompetence. 5) Mitroff is a Town official who is very familiar with the Board's Rules and knows that important issues need proper placement on the Board's agenda and support with written documentation. Reynolds often discusses Town business with Mitroff, but rarely informs the Board of the dates, nature, substance or details of these private discussions held behind closed doors with Mitroff. 6) Mitroff has been a well known political critic of one selectman and liberally abuses the Rules and distorts the truth. Carlstrom allows Mitroff's disruptive practices to continue unabated, even over the objections of another board member. 7) Reynolds was aware Mitroff was going to discuss the Incident at the September 24, 2001 Board Meeting inappropriately in the "Public Comment" section of the Board meeting, and Reynolds was also aware Mitroff was not properly placed on the Board's Meeting agenda according to the Rules. 8) Mitroff knew that Reynolds did not document the Incident, as required by the Manual, which set the stage to attack the injured parties, instead of Terry's, Murray's, and Reynolds' misdeeds. 9) Reynolds did not require Mitroff to conform to the Rules which included providing the Board with "as much information as possible to permit board review in advance of the meeting", nor did Reynolds, knowing Mitroff was going to interrogate the Board about the Incident, prepare an Incident report for the Board, nor did Reynolds place the matter on the agenda for discussion as required by the Board's Rules, nor did Reynolds, consistent with past practice, inform the Board in advance of the meeting of an event which involves a Town employee willfully breaching a law, or a rule or regulation. 10) Chief Begin was specifically invited to come to the September 24th meeting to address Mitroff's statements about the Incident, and his role in the Incident. 11) Reynolds knew that Murray and Terry broke numerous laws related to the trespassing on private property, the willful "Dig Safe" law violations and the illegally installed the Materials, but Reynolds did not did not require Murray or Terry to be present at the September 24, 2001 Board's meeting to discuss their roles in the Incident. 12) Thus, by construction, this meeting became a forum to attack the injured parties, instead of Terry's, Murray's and Reynolds' misdeeds. 13) Reynolds' complete failure to perform a number of his responsibilities formed a politically motivated conspiracy with Carlstrom, Woodbury, Murray, Terry, Mitroff and others to unfairly attack, politically ambush, and most importantly do harm to the reputation and character of a member of the Board, which is morally, ethically, and logically wrong. 14) When Chairman Carlstrom opened the Board's meeting of September 24, 2001, he immediately recognized Mitroff, who accused, without any documentation or evidence, a member of the Board of removing a speed limit sign in front of his house. Mitroff's remarks began a predictable long, bitter, improper and unnecessarily acrimonious discussion. 15) Mitroff never acknowledged that the metal post was drilled into the ground with a sledge hammer on private property directly above a conduit designed to carry a 7,000 volt electric cable which was a violation of the state's "Dig Safe" law, and that no permission of the private property owners was obtained by the Town, and that it violated a written Agreement that the Board and Reynolds had signed with the property owners and that the Board had never authorized the placement of the Materials. 16) Mitroff's interrogation of the Board was a clear violation of the Rules and a Board member pointed out that Mitroff was out of order. Mitroff said that she wasn't out of order unless Carlstrom said she was. Chairman Carlstrom ignored the Rules of order challenge from the Board member without discussion or comment, which was a second violation of the Rules. Chairman Carlstrom allowed Mitroff to continue discussion unabated, in total, for about twenty minutes in the ten minute "Public Comment" section of the meeting, which was a third Rules violation. 17) Willard Dodge (Dodge) was recognized by Chairman Carlstrom to speak on the matter where he offered an oral legal opinion, without any proof or documentation or deed whatsoever, that the Town owned the selectman's land, which was completely without merit and untrue. 18) The Police Chief stated that there is no evidence that anyone removed any of the Materials and nobody provided any support or evidence or witnesses whatsoever for their claims during the thirty minutes of discussion, and Reynolds had no written report of the Incident to confirm or deny any of the discussion. 19) Chairman Carlstrom, Woodbury, Mitroff and Dodge never mentioned the known, documented, willful and illegal acts by Murray and his crew led by Terry regarding illegal trespass on private property, installing illegal metal posts, violating the "Dig Safe" laws, and violating a signed Board's agreement. 20) Since the whole matter was out of order and without merit, the targeted selectman refused to comment. 21) Subsequent to the meeting, on September 25th, the private property owners requested in writing, copies of any information or evidence under the state's "Right To Know" law regarding the Incident. 22) The response to the "Right To Know" request, and personal interviews, confirmed on September 21, 2001, prior to the September 24, 2001 Board meeting, the Town's illegal trespass on private property, installing illegal structures, violating the "Dig Safe" laws, and violating a signed Board's agreement and this was confirmed by Reynolds. 23) In spite of this, on Tuesday, September 25th, another Town employee entered again upon private property without permission to retrieve the illegally installed Materials, found in the locus of the illegal installation of the Materials. 24) Neither Chairman Carlstrom, Woodbury, Mitroff and Dodge, Murray, Terry or Reynolds came to meet with the private property owners at their property to discuss the Town's illegal trespass on private property, installing illegal structures, violating the "Dig Safe" laws, and violating a signed Board's agreement. 25) Mitroff published her usual collection of scurrilous, defamatory, slanderous and untrue remarks in her tabloid - the selectman was never asked to comment before of after publication. 26) Reynolds has still refused to prepare a written report of the Incident as required by the Manual, Sections 4-3 and 2, including the school bus incident which endangered the lives of five people, including three special needs students. |
FINDINGS OF FACT: 1) Murray's standard operating procedure is to wait for complaints about work done, rather than request permission to do work before it is started. 2) Consistent with this approach, Murray did not arrange to contact any property owners or abutters in advance of the installation of these Materials prior, or after, to their installation on private property, which is clearly contrary to the due process requirements of the 4th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution and the New Hampshire, Constitution, Article 19 of the Bill of Rights. 3) Murray's standard operating procedure is to deliberately ignore the state of New Hampshire's "Dig Safe" law, even when he knows that high voltage electric, telephone and cable television conduits are present. 4) Regarding the Incident, one of these metal posts were driven approximately three (3) feet into the ground directly over five (5) four (4) inch diameter main line utility conduits. Murray knows that utility conduits have a minimum depth requirement of three (3) feet in the area where Murray knew that conduits are present and that one of these conduits is designated to support a 7,000 volt cable. 5) This is the second time, and on the same roadway corridor, that Murray has recently endangered the lives and safety of citizens and employees of the Town, where the first incident occurred when Murray's regular lack of planning and scheduling was cause for a live 7,000 volt electric cable to contact a special needs school bus, with three children and a bus driver on board. The spectacular electric shock 'light show' terrified the occupants for an extended period of time until emergency crews arrived and rescued them. The school bus was traveling on Clark Hill Road west of 271 Clark Hill Road. This completely preventable incident endangered the lives of five people. 6) This was the ninth time that Murray ignored the "Dig Safe" law on Clark Hill Road alone in the last two years and Violating the "Dig Safe" law carries a penalty of up to a $5,000 fine for each violation and there were four occurrences just on Clark Hill Road alone on September 18th. 7) Murray has not been reprimanded by Reynolds or the Board for any of these abuses of the law and never publicly apologized to the injured parties. |
|
1) In April 2001, facts were presented to the Board that several Town employees had violated more than a dozen statutes and caused uncompensated damage to the selectman's private property beginning in April 1999. 2) The Manual requires Reynolds to address violations of law by employees on duty. 3) In March 2001, the Board admitting to severely damaging private property, apologized for causing damages and awarding $11,707, including attorney fees, to both owners of the Homestead property. 4) As a result of this issue of public record, Reynolds did not issue or recommend to the Board any reprimands to any Town employee whatsoever, even though several laws had been broken and the Town had admitted to at least $11,707 in damages. 5) As a result of Reynolds irresponsible inaction, Mitroff wrote a mean-spirited four page editorial about one of the injured parties, mentioning the victim's name sixty-three (63) times, but Mitroff never identified a single person in the Town's employ that caused over $17,000 in preventable damages. 6) No Town employee to date has been identified as the person who caused the Town $17,000 in damages. Reynolds was ultimately responsible for that project and it was Reynolds, along with Murray, the overseer of the actual work, who were the principle parties responsible for those damages, and wasting tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars on the project in total. 7) Town officials have yet to apologize for the incident that caused $17,000 in damages to the victims and the violation of numerous laws in the process. |
|
As a result of the numerous criminal acts committed by agents of the Town of New Boston, this letter was tendered by a member of the Board of Selectmen. The board of selectmen accepted the letter below without comment or denial of the facts stated within it. None of the aforementioned facts have been disputed by the town, thus continue to stand as true. October 23, 2001 Irene Baudreau, Town Clerk Town of New Boston Dear Irene: I ran for the office of selectman in March 2000 to help improve communications between town offices and improve the efficiency and efficacy of town departments. This has proven to be a formidable task largely due to the pervasiveness of the problem, a severe lack of training afforded to town employees, and an attitude at the highest level that laws, rules and regulations are to be broken at their pleasure. I believe that you, and many other town employees, have suffered greatly by decisions that were imposed upon you and the others by the administration. I am sorry that you had to go through this ordeal. Since I was elected, I have found that the Town Administrator, the Highway Agent and a majority of the Board of Selectmen have little respect for certain basic Constitutional rights and the Civil Rights of citizens and taxpayers. Instead of the government and its agents being directly accountable to the people as the Constitution requires, these individuals have proven to be predators when issues arise that particularly involve citizens who have recently moved into town. State laws are routinely ignored by these individuals without warning, reprimand or suspension to the offending parties. One of these incidents involved ignoring culpability that endangered the lives of three school children and a bus driver. In fact, compelling incidents are not even investigated or documented. The Town Administrator is incompetent, divisive and a poor communicator. What's worse, he encourages his subordinates to deliberately violate state statutes and engage in inappropriate or improper behavior. A majority of the Board of Selectmen has condoned this behavior and has demonstrated a lack of respect for the rights of certain private property owners. They have violated their own Personnel Policy Manual and their own Rules of Procedures to make political statements. In addition, this majority clandestinely meets to discuss and decide upon town business and withholds public records in violation the state's "Right To Know" law. All of this is plainly wrong. On the positive side, I have met many wonderful people, dedicated town officials and hard working town employees that I hold in high regard. I am also proud of my accomplishments to: help establish a new library site; create the town's first written town-wide gravel road specification; develop rules and procedures to better manage board meetings; help frame the requirements for renewing our cable television contract; recommend substantive improvements to our zoning ordinance, regulations and rules; and most importantly, use the law as a basis to help make New Boston a better place to live. However, since elected, my family has suffered a great deal as a result of the decisions I have made to do the right thing at the right time. And, I simply cannot continue to serve on a board with a philosophy, dramatically different from mine, that basically supports the lawless, improper or inappropriate conduct of their friends or political partners, at the expense of others. Therefore, please accept my resignation as selectman effective immediately. Sincerely, David Delorey |