No timestamps are available for this video, but watch the first five minutes to hear Chip disparage the “Moultonborough Taliban.”
Tuftonboro selectman Chip Albee, a registered Democrat, referred to the “Moultonborough Taliban” when speaking about Republicans in neighboring Moultonborough. Albee alleged that Democrats had been forbidden from campaigning at the Moultonborough transfer station while Republicans had been allowed to, because “the Moultonborough Taliban was working its way.” Such viewpoint discrimination would be clearly illegal and unconstitutional. However, it’s not quite on the same level as the Taliban throwing acid in little girls’ faces, cutting off people’s heads, and carrying out suicide attacks.
I have asked Moultonboro Speaks blogger, Paul Punturieri, himself a Democrat, if he knows if Moultonborough Democrats were prevented from campaigning at the Moultonborough transfer station while Republicans were allowed to. I am a Republican, but if this happened then it’s appalling. Describing political opponents as the Taliban is also appalling.
Paul told me that it’s been longstanding town policy in Moultonborough not to allow campaigning on town property. He also said that he remembered an incident in 2010 when Chip was running for re-election as Carroll County Commissioner, and being challenged by Republican Asha Kenney. Paul said that Kenney had gone to the Moultonborough transfer station one Saturday to campaign, which prompted numerous complaints to the Moultonborough board of selectmen from residents. The board either informed Kenny of the no-campaigning policy or reminded her of it (it’s not clear to me whether she knew before she went), and she didn’t return. Kenney defeated Chip in the election and served one term as commissioner.
Time stamps available: Continue reading “Work Session, 1-5-18”
Last week a preliminary hearing in Steinman vs Tuftonboro was cancelled at the 11th hour when the parties came to an agreement for a Stipulation on Preliminary Injunctive Relief. Rick Sager, the selectmen’s attorney, was kind enough to forward the agreement to me yesterday evening.
The Steinmans and the selectman have temporarily agreed to the location of the center line of Brown Road and the location of the Right of Way, without waiving any legal rights, “for the duration of this action or until amended by Court order.”
As long as they don’t encroach on the towns Right of Way, as temporarily agreed to, “the Steinmans may maintain the stonewall in its present location… on a temporary basis during the pendency [sic] of this action.”
Before the final hearing, the Steinmans may “extend the said stonewall along the temporarily stipulated right of way boundary line so as not to encroach the Town’s ROW to the water’s edge in compliance with all Town and State regulations.” However, they acknowledge if they do so the court may later require them to move the rocks.
The town agree to “take reasonable steps to ensure the stones” (in their present location) are “secured against any third party removing” them.
The two parties acknowledge the Stipulation “does not create, extinguish, or limit any right for any member of the public to use any right of waay which may or may not exist in this location, but reserve the right to “proceed against any person whose actions are in disregard to the several rights of the parties hereto” through civil or criminal charges.
One of the points of agreement in the Stipulation is that the Town will “Notice this Order publicly in Town Records.” So it’s in the Town’s interest to get this information out, and I’m happy to do my small part. Still, Rick didn’t have to send it to me, so I thank him.
Selectmen Bill Marcussen and Lloyd Wood appear to be giving false information about having town-business related emails in their possession.
On November 3, 2016, I made a Right to Know request for emails that Carolyn Sundquist, then the chairman of the board of selectmen, had sent or received between January 1, 2016, and February 29, 2016. Instead of complying with the Right to Know law (RSA 91-A), the selectmen tried to charge me an illegal fee to access these public records. When I refused to pay the fee, which could have amounted to thousands of dollars, the selectmen sued me and Bob McWhirter. The selectmen eventually lost their case against me after eight months of litigation.
Nevertheless, the selectmen have refused to provide me with all of the emails I requested. They have sent me only the emails that Carolyn received, but not the emails that she sent. Their attorney, Richard Sager of Sager & Smith in Ossipee, NH, has admitted that the emails were deleted, which is a possible criminal violation of 91-A:9.
Because the selectmen refused to provide me the sent emails from Carolyn, last week I requested emails from Bill and Lloyd for the same months (January and February 2016). I did this because Bill and Lloyd may possess emails that Carolyn sent. Those are the emails that I am looking for and that any member of the public has a right to see.
The selectmen’s secretary, Karen Koch, emailed me yesterday and made the completely unbelievable claim that Bill and Lloyd do not have any emails for the two months in question.
Subject: request for emails
From: Tuftonboro Selectmen <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 3:53 PM
I have been notified that you requested all town-related emails sent or received by Bill and Lloyd between January 1, 2016 and February 29, 2016. Bill was not a selectman at this time but did serve on Town committees. He doesn’t believe that he has any emails from this time period. He will verify this and if he finds anything I will notify you.
Lloyd doesn’t have any emails from this time period.
Town of Tuftonboro
240 Middle Road
P.O. Box 98
Ctr. Tuftonboro, NH 03816
(603) 569-4539 X10
This is not just unbelievable, it’s verifiably false. Here is an email that Bill sent to Lloyd, Carolyn, and Dan Duffy on Feb. 10, 2016, within the timeframe in question:
Bill and Lloyd are either misleading or forgetful, or they have deleted all of their emails.
There will be a hearing on Friday, December 1, 2017, at 10:30AM at Carroll County Superior Court for the lawsuit that Dr. Theodore and Carol Steinman have brought against the town of Tuftonboro.
In 2016, Carolyn Sundquist, who was the chairman of the selectmen at the time, told the Steinmans that they could place boulders on their property along the edge of Brown Road. The goal of placing the rocks was to stop people from accessing Lower Beech Pond with boat trailers. Carolyn acted without the approval of the rest of the board of selectmen, but the Steinmans followed her directions anyway and placed boulders in the town’s right of way. The selectmen — included Carolyn — then told the Steinmans to move the boulders. When the Steinmans refused to move them, the selectmen — Carolyn having since left office — instructed the Road Agent to push the boulders farther onto the Steinmans’s property, out of the town’s right of way.
The Steinmans dispute the location of the right of way and allege that the town trespassed on their property.
Richard Sager, of Sager & Smith in Ossipee, is representing the selectmen. A review of his available invoices show he has billed the town at least $3,568.75 for the Steinman lawsuit.
The selectmen lost their lawsuit against Bob McWhirter and me but they’re still paying their attorney, Richard Sager for it using taxpayer money. Sager’s invoice from September includes $1,884.75 for services related to the selectmen’s lawsuit. This brings the total that the selectmen have paid to Sager for the lawsuit to $18,649.62. The selectmen also paid $2,281.25 to Patrick Harvie to give “expert testimony” at the court hearing in June.
That brings the total amount of taxpayer money that the selectmen have spent trying to make it more difficult for the public to access public documents to $20,930.87.
The selectmen have spent such a large amount of money on their failed lawsuit that even Sager seems to think it’s too much. Starting in September, Sager reduced his rate and his paralegal’s rate — for the services related to the Right to Know case only — to 60% of his regular fee, which is $175 per hour. (That is the prevailing municipal rate for attorneys in this area.) [See update below.] Sager’s regular rate for his paralegal is $100 per hour. He reduced those rates to $105 and $60.
If Sager had charged his regular fees for the work related to the lawsuit in September then his invoice for those services would have been $3,141.25 not $1,884.75.
I appreciate that Sager reduced his rates (for work related to the lawsuit) in September. However, the bulk of the work his office performed in that month was redacting of emails. Even at his reduced rates, that’s an incredible waste of taxpayer money considering the selectmen could have had the town office staff, who we already pay, do that work at no extra cost. Instead they chose to have Sager do the redaction work.
If the selectmen are going to continue to waste taxpayer money, I suggest Sager revert to his normal rates. Why should he take less than his normal fee? I don’t blame him for charging for his services.
Update: The post originally states “That is the prevailing rate for attorneys in this area.” But I updated it to include be the municipal rate after Sager had this to say on Facebook in response to this post:
Oh, Max. More complaining. Much Ledoux about nothing. And not accurate once again. So here goes. (1) I reduced my rate by 40% for the purpose of redacting emails because the Town didn’t have the resources available to do it. My rate for municipalities is $175/hour. (2) You are incorrect (again) when you say $175/hour “is the prevailing rate for attorneys in this area.” Wrong. That’s a prevailing rate (or even a little low) for attorneys doing municipal work. Call around and you will see the prevailing hourly rate in this area for non-municipal work ranges around $275-$300/hour. Head south and it’s in the $350-450 range. (3) I didn’t just decide to charge a lower rate for email redaction in September 2017. I offered that to the selectmen in 2016 when you made your request for 13,000 emails. So, when are you going to inform me and the folks on this Forum about your decision whether you agree to sit down and meet? Just don’t ignore the invitation, man up! If you don’t want to participate, say so (and why would be interesting). If your answer is yes, let’s set it up.
Sager has never substantiated the “13,000” emails claim, although he throws it at me often as if it’s a lot of emails (it’s not). In court documents, the selectmen’s administrative secretary, Karen Koch, stated there were between 740 and 760 emails responsive to Bob McWhirter’s Right to Know request. My Right to Know request has so far produced a few hundred emails, at most. (However, the selectmen are refusing to provide me all of the emails that were the subject of the lawsuit.) Further, Karen stated in the documents that were filed with the court that the selectmen’s counsel (Sager) had informed her that the number of emails was not relevant.
Timestamps available: Continue reading “Selectmen’s Meeting 11-13-17”