Monday, March 7, 2011

More Lies From Our UNProfessional and UNEthical Town Officials

Why does everything coming from Gary Phillips, Chief, sound like a bold faced lie? Why does it seem like his explanations are designed to evade explaining the truth? Why do they sound like an attempt to deceive and defraud the public of the truth of what really went on, when he claims a crime of such a great magnitude occurred at his Winchester Police Department that he called on Sheriff’s Department to investigate it?

Why does it sound like Town Hall is helping to cover for him?

This is how our elected and appointed Unprofessional and Unethical Officials run our Town Offices and Government.

Nothing good will ever happen in Winchester unless Ethical and Professional Officials are Voted In and Appointed.

As has been pointed out by some of the Citizenry to the rest of the world they look like a bunch of buffoons.

When people start bringing forward information that is factual and can be shown to be real and is not contrived and not just a figment of someone else's over active imagination, it’s time to surrender and admit the facts are what they are and those responsible will be held accountable for their decisions and actions. 

The following email, a Right-To-Know request, was originally sent to the Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen.

It took a month and a circle jerk with town officials to get denied.

Our selectmen Theresea Sepe and Sherman Tedford know exactly what is going here. One still works for the police and both used to.

Both were Lieutenants in the Winchester Police Department and both know full well and intimately what the policies are and what the differences are between a criminal investigation and an internal investigation.

Both know the difference in how criminal investigations and internal investigations are conducted and both know criminal investigations aren’t internal investigations.

Both know Phillips reported a crime to the Sheriff’s Office and that the Sheriff’s Office conducted a criminal investigation at the request of the Chief of Police to investigate that crime.

They can’t deny this. So now the police are protecting the police and it starts at the Town Hall?

A very professional staff at the Town of Winchester.

Apparently not only does the Town have a customer service problem, they have an Ethics problem and an Integrity Problem and they seem to like to hide things from the public.

They don't seem too bright either. Several times it's looks like the same things had to keep being explained, including the laws.

When a request was made for documents related to the break in and theft at the police station, reported to the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Office to both Sheriff Foote and Captain Croteau, the request was denied because any documents, according to Chief Gary Phillips are related to an internal investigation.

That is a contradiction to what Sheriff Foote has written, in fact Sheriff Foote writes his department never conducted any internal investigation for the Winchester Police Department:
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/b/post-preview?token=lpSJki4BAAA.a1NtLGxdnNv3U5M_vtezvQ.PHPghRSQQoc90bdszrYlJQ&postId=3474100087144989518&type=PAGE

How is it that Phillips can make someone else’s criminal investigation into something that it is not?

One can only assume that Phillips is again trying to manipulate facts and the BOS stand behind him.

Maybe the internal investigation Phillips is trying to protect is the one where he is covering up what really went on in the Winchester Police Department?

In bold are new responses.
________________________________________________________
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov
dateSun, Dec 5, 2010 at 7:23 PM

subjectTown Buildings

To Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen,

RTK request - Are there any documents pertaining to crimes that have occurred at any town buildings or on any town property from January 2005 through November 2010?

Thank you
______________________________________________________
dateMon, Dec 6, 2010 at 8:58 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning

As RSA 91-A:4 reads: Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any governmental record reasonably described..........

Your request is not reasonably described. Please identify the document you want to see, and the approximate date of the document.

For your convenience, the RTK application is on-line at the Town of Winchester website.

Thank you,

Joan Morel
___________________________________________________
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
dateMon, Dec 6, 2010 at 10:16 AM
subjectRe: Town Buildings

For your clarification, obviously by your response there are documents, so I would like to see any documents the town has in regards to crimes occurring in any buildings or on any property.
__________________________________________________
 toConcerned Citizens
dateMon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:51 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning again

Please re-read what I wrote, and be specific.

Thank you,

Joan Morel
_____________________________________________________
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
dateMon, Dec 6, 2010 at 9:17 PM
 subjectRe: Town Buildings

Good Evening,

This is a quote from a Keene Sentinel article in today's paper.

"When that person mentioned the information in the letter to another town official, Phillips called the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Department to investigate the apparent theft of the letter from his office."

Is that information specific enough for a request for information? I would like to see any documents, reports or minutes related to the reported theft that the Chief reported to the Cheshire County Sheriff's Department and referenced in this article.

I've provided the rest article for your convenience and reference.

Former cop heads to high court
Fired Winchester sergeant appeals decision upholding firing by town
By Sarah Palermo
Sentinel Staff
Published: Monday, December 06, 2010

WINCHESTER —A former sergeant in the police department has filed an appeal to the N.H. Supreme Court, claiming Winchester officials violated his rights when they fired him.

Daniel Reppucci, who worked in the Winchester Police Department from 2003 to 2009, sued the town when he was fired last August, looking to get his job back.

The town won, and Reppucci appealed to the state’s highest court. His attorney, J. Joseph McKittrick, filed their first briefs with the Supreme Court last week.

Here’s a look at the case so far:

In 2009, a lieutenant position became available in the department, and Reppucci applied. When he lost the promotion to another officer, Chris Roberts, he filed a grievance with Winchester Police Chief Gary A. Phillips.

The grievance referenced an internal investigation involving Roberts, and discussed the promotion of another officer, according to the ruling in the town’s favor from Cheshire County Superior Court.

Reppucci spoke to a former state representative from Winchester about the promotion, and either gave him a copy of the letter or described it.

When that person mentioned the information in the letter to another town official, Phillips called the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Department to investigate the apparent theft of the letter from his office.

Reppucci refused to cooperate with the investigating deputy without first consulting his attorney — even after Phillips ordered him to answer the deputy’s questions, according to the ruling.

Reppucci was placed on paid leave at the beginning of July 2009, according to the ruling. Phillips recommended he be fired at a hearing the next month.

Reppucci’s current appeal hinges on that hearing, where he refused to argue his case before the board of selectmen, because his attorney couldn’t be present.

He asked that the hearing be postponed until his attorney could attend.

But the board refused to reschedule — a decision he says violated his rights to due process — and voted to fire him — which he says violated his freedom of speech.

“The Town’s argument against granting a continuance was that a delay would be ‘inconvenient’ and ‘a hardship on the department ...’ ” McKittrick wrote, before noting that inconvenience is not a legal reason for denying due process, and officials could have suspended Reppucci’s pay until the next hearing.

The board of selectmen and the police department both had legal counsel at the hearing, where Reppucci faced 12 different charges, McKittrick wrote in the brief.

He was accused of:

u Failing to answer questions by a Cheshire County Sheriff’s deputy, after being ordered to by the chief;

u Publishing confidential internal information, through the release of the letter;

u And forwarding confidential documents to his home computer, among other charges.

In the year since he lost his job, Reppucci has moved out of New England, and spent significant time building boxes of files and documents he says refute the accusations.

The town’s attorney has until the end of the month to file responding briefs.
Sarah Palermo can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1436, or spalermo@keenesentinel.com
_____________________________________________________
fromJoan Morel
reply-tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
Concerned Citizens
dateTue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:30 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning

Now that it is clear from which department you want a document, you should address that department with an RTK form. Again, that form is available to you on the Town website.

Sincerely

Joan Morel
__________________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to jmorel
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 7, 2010 at 9:50 AM
 subjectRe: Town Buildings

I'm beginning to feel like this is a runaround. What documents does the Town Hall have in regards to the crime referred to in the newspaper article?

This is part of the same ongoing request. There are other rumors about other crimes that we will discuss at another time.

What department should be addressed? The request is to the Town Hall about the Town. Does the Town Hall have documents or meeting minutes in respect to the crime reported in the newspaper? Perhaps a folder? If the RTK request is for information that is non-existent, please just say so.

Thank you.
______________________________________________________
fromConcerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
ccselectmen@winchester.nh.gov
 dateWed, Dec 8, 2010 at 7:48 AM
 subjectRe: Town Buildings

Dear Joan,

It’s unfortunate that you as well as the other Town employees, elected, appointed or hired, dislike having to deal with this is the type of correspondence you must deal with. However, be that as it may, we, the public, still have a right to know what if anything is or isn’t happening in our town, including with the personnel who’s salaries are paid with our tax dollars pay and the buildings and equipment our tax dollars, purchase and maintain.

You might be able to stall the release of information temporarily but; by now you must realize that there is a group of people who get the information they need and want, not by breaking the law, but by holding the Town Government to the law.

To use the words of BoS, Sherm Tedford, who has frequented the following saying, the Police Department works for the Town of Winchester and the BoS and so on.

A RTK request is again being made to the Town:
Request made by email
Requested: December 5th
Request For Copies.

Request for: documents, files, emails, correspondence, meetings minutes, etc pertaining to a theft at the Winchester Police Department as reported by Gary A Phillips, to the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Department. See Keene Sentinel article, dated 12/6/10.

An answer from the Town to this request, per RTK laws, is expected. ________________________________________________________
fromJoan Morel
reply-tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateThu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:19 PM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning

To reiterate, you should address the Police Department with your RTK requesting documents about crimes. That department determines what can be released from files regarding any criminal activity. When you contact them, please reasonably identify each of the documents you want to see, and the approximate date of each of those documents.

From your comments and the attached newspaper story, it seems you are refering to documents related to the on-going case in which the Town prevailed against Mr. Repucci, and which Mr. Repucci has now appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

Joan Morel
____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
dateMon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:51 AM
 subjectRe: Town Buildings

Dear Joan,

Responding to your latest email.

Please stop sending me to the police department. They don't have the information I am requesting.

I'm referring to a break in at the police department and the notification, if any, made by the Chief of Police and resulting action of that notification if any. The rest of it I don't care about. I'm not interested in any court cases.

I want to know what documents are available concerning a break in at the police department as it relates to other Town Departments and Officials other than the Police Department.

We already know that the information coming from the police department is less than truthful so I’m not interested in anything from that department at the moment.

I’m interested in what documents the Town Hall and Officers of the Town have, not what the Police Department has.

For instance, letters and emails to and from the Chief, BoS or Town Administrator or the LGC indicating a break in or meeting minutes about public discussions on the subject. Any correspondence, emails, documents to ANY and All Town Officials and Department Heads regarding this break in. A notice in the newspaper.

Any invoices for security upgrades to Town Buildings, offices and property.

When the police department was broken into the Chief had to have reported this to someone in the Town, it is beyond belief if he didn’t.

The Chief of Police, like any other department head is responsible for keeping the BoS informed of pertinent information related to their department and facilities, be it a break in or a repair that is needed.

Surely, this incident would have been communicated and documented in writing to and/or from the Town Hall at some level. If for no other reason than to document the report of a crime at one of the taxpayers buildings for insurance purposes in the event the criminal investigation produced evidence of a theft of equipment or the like.

Again, the request is being made for any letters and emails to and from the BoS or Town Administrator, or any other department indicating notification of a break in at the police department, any invoices related to that break in. Any correspondence to ANY Town Officials about this break in and any other documents in the possession of the Town other than what the police department may or may not have.

Perhaps it’s because you are still new in Town and haven’t acclimated yourself yet, but really the requests are quite clear. The newspaper article was sent so you had a point of reference and to point out that the request was being made about an incident that really happened.

If there is no documentation because there were no notifications made writing or because no actions resulting in the purchases of services or equipment were taken, please just state that, because that is what this simple request is asking for.

I hope this clarifies the request.
_______________________________________________________
reply-tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateMon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:12 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Please reference my previous answers of December 6 at 8:58am and 11:51am, December 7 at 8:30am, December 9 at 12:19pm. They all apply to this, as well as your own email of December 6 at 9:18pm in which you reference the theft described as part of the on-going case reported in the article titled "Former cop heads to high court".

Joan Morel
____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to jmorel
show details 12/13/10

So the Chief of Police never told anyone. Very interesting.

______________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to Gary, jmorel, selectmen
fromConcerned Citizens
ccjmorel@winchester.nh.gov,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 14, 2010 at 12:42 PM
subjectRe: Town Buildings

Dear Chief,

The Town Administrator and Selectmen have directed this RTK request toyou. So Chief, are there any documents related to a break in at your police department?

Specifically, are you in possession of any emails, letters or invoices that would relate to the incident that was reported in the paper recently? We're not sure why you would be the one to contact for things like emails to the board and other departments or outside government agencies or why you would have invoices or insurance claims or reports but we are doing what we were told.

So the request is being made to you to fullfill the RTK request. When can these documents be made available?

Thanks
______________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to Gary, jmorel, selectmen
show details 12/15/10

Ass directed, an email was sent to the Chief, he responded to the email about the meeting for the RTK request to view the documents for investigation IN08-385.

He has not responded back to the original RTK request made to the Adminstrator or the selectmen for any documents related to the theft or break in or whatever of the police station or his office.

Documents like emails or letters to any of the selectboard or letters for insurance purposes.

Any invoices for upgrades in security. I'm not sure why Joan directed me to the Chief for this item and not either say there were invoices or there were not invoices but asking the Chief is what I did.

That now raises another issue. For the purposes of the audit why doesn't the finance department keep copies of all invoices paid by the Town in files at the finance depts office? It seems rather bizarre that you would have department be responsible for the safekeeping proof of that departments purchases.

In any case, when can a reply be expected from anyone? ___________________________________________________
12/19/10
Gary Phillips to me, jmorel

Dear Concerned Citizens do consider this correspondence as an answer to your request of Tuesday December 14, 2010 requesting e-mails, letters or invoices relating to a newspaper article in which your request appears to refer to non-specific documents possibly related to a lengthy on going court case involving a terminated Town of Winchester, New Hampshire ex-employee in which the Town of Winchester prevailed and the ex-employee is appealing to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

You need to be more specific in your request in order for me to provide you with a definitive answer to your request. Chief G.A. Phillips
________________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to gphillips, jmorel, selectmen
show details 12/21/10

As requested, I went back over the original RTK request to see if there was some confusion about what was asked for. I couldn’t find any confusion. The request was not general, but specific.

Also, the request was first made on Sunday, Dec 5th and not last Tuesday, Dec 14th as you state in your email.

Due to continued stonewalling, stalling and denial by the Town officials, for legitimate RTK requests, a copy of a recent news article was attached when the request was made for the second, third or fourth time.

The news article was published in the Sentinel on Dec 6th. The article references a report you made to the Sheriff’s Dept about a theft occurring at the police dept possibly in your office. From the article,

“When that person mentioned the information in the letter to another town official, Phillips called the Cheshire County Sheriff’s Department to investigate the apparent theft of the letter from his office.”

It was coincidental that the article appeared at the same time a request was being made about thefts at the town or on town property.

It was attached simply because we are tired of being told that things don’t happen when clearly they really do. We are trying to identify problems so we taxpayers can figure out how best we want to fix them and what our options might be to keep our taxes down.

Quite frankly, it’s disturbing to find out the police department was broken into.

So the request to you is the same as the request was before:

WE would like view any and all documents that relate to the break in of your office that you reported to the Sheriff.

It’s apparent there is litigation going on.

That is not the concern at the moment.

Since there was a break-in it would only stand to reason that there would be correspondence from you reporting this to the board, other town employees and outside agencies, by letter, memo or email.

Also any invoices for purchases of additional security equipment, hardware, software or analysis of security within the building, computer system (and network security), rekeying locks and vehicles or anything else that relates to the incident you reported to the Sheriff’s office and made public by the Keene Sentinel.

As you know by the attached emails we already made this request of the town officials and they directed us to you.

WE would appreciate you getting us this information.

Thanks
______________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to Gary, jmorel, selectmen
show details 12/23/10

Since it seems that logistically it’s not easy to rotate around your schedule and since it might be a waste of time to even stop in because no one might be available, how about we just make arrangements for you to fax the reports? It will probably just make things easier that way, even though the cost is excessive.

Let me know how many pages and the cost per page please and a payment will be mailed to you.

Also, you have not acknowledged the RTK request that was made on Dec 5th (the first request) or Dec 14th (the date you state) in your request for more information.

It would seem that too will be easier to accomplish by fax. Please indicate the number of pages and fee.

I would expect that all expenses will be lumped together, instead of charging for everything individually.
___________________________________________________

Phillips began trying to confuse the issues by answering a separate and different RTK with his responses to this request which was for documentation related to the Break In at the Police Department. Specifically the one he reported to the Sheriff.
____________________________________________________
fromGary Phillips
toConcerned Citizens
dateFri, Dec 24, 2010 at 3:10 PM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Dear Concerned Citizens do consider this correspondence as the answer to your request of Tuesday December 21, 2010 requesting e-mails, letters or invoices relating to a newspaper article that appears to refer to non-specific, unverified documents possibly related to an on going court case involving a terminated Town of Winchester employee in which the Town of Winchester prevailed and the employee is attempting to appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.

The Town of Winchester town policy overseeing Right to Know requests is titled Record Information Request Policy (located on the Town of Winchester, NH website at www.winchester-nh.gov). The policy clearly states that a written request shall be required for documents that are not reasonably described. Unfortunately, your request does not reasonably describe any document in sufficient detail.

Per the aforementioned Winchester Town policy, you need to provide a written request providing your full name, address, telephone number or contact information if no telephone number, and describe, in detail, the document or documents you request. The request shall be signed by the requestor.

Chief Gary A. Phillips / Winchester Police Department
_____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens
togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
ccjmorel@winchester.nh.gov,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:01 PM
subjectRe: Town Buildings

Dear Mr. Phillips (you keep signing your name differently, this is easier for me to remember, no disrespect intended),

Let’s start this out by accurately reflecting the record of the previous emails because I don’t like when my words are misconstrued or people try to put words in my mouth.

The request was NOT for “e-mails, letters or invoices relating to a newspaper article”

What is in Red font are quotes from MY previous emails, what is in Blue font are quotes from the Town’s emails, what is in Orange font are quotes from your emails.

December 5th a very specific request for documents pertaining to crimes occurring between 2005 and 2010 on property of the taxpayers was requested. “To Town Administrator and Board of Selectmen - RTK request - Are there any documents pertaining to crimes that have occurred at any town buildings or on any town property from January 2005 through November 2010?”

Dec 6th, that request was denied by Joan Morel as being too vague. One can only imagine from that response that numerous crimes occur on town property. “Please identify the document you want to see, and the approximate date of the document”

The request was made again and when that too was deemed insufficient in detail a snippy response was given by Joan Morel.

reply-tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateMon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:51 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning again
Please re-read what I wrote, and be specific.
Thank you,
Joan Morel
On December 6th, the Keene Sentinel published an article entitled,

Former cop heads to high court, Fired Winchester sergeant appeals decision upholding firing by town. That article was attached for the sole purpose of providing an example of at least one crime that had been committed in the Town of Winchester, on taxpayer property, at least as determined or suspected by the Chief of Police, Gary A Phillips, who reported the crime.

When that article was sent and read by Joan Morel, her response was:
Joan Morel
reply-tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateTue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:30 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Good morning

Now that it is clear from which department you want a document, you should address that department with an RTK form. Again, that form is available to you on the Town website.
Sincerely
Joan Morel

That response still did not answer the request made of her and the BOS. It was apparent she had no desire to provide the required response to the request and I was told to deal directly with you. Three times requests for information have been made to you without a response from you. All verifiable by looking at the previous emails making such a request.

Your Reply to One Request:

“Dear Concerned Citizens do consider this correspondence as the answer to your request of Tuesday December 21, 2010 requesting e-mails, letters or invoices relating to a newspaper article that appears to refer to non-specific, unverified documents possibly related to an on going court case involving a terminated Town of Winchester employee in which the Town of Winchester prevailed and the employee is attempting to appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.”

The request to you now is the same as the request was before and is NOT about a newspaper article and is not pertaining to a court case. You reported a break in – that is in the Sheriff’s Report. That is the focus of the request. To get information regarding a crime, in this case, reported by you. Please see the following links on the Winchester Corruption Blog that are part of a Sheriff’s investigative report.

You’re the one who made the report of a crime. Don’t blame others for wanting information revolving around that report.

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cheshire-county-sheriff-investigation.html

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_jisZ_H-yUSg/TQfADeqULAI/AAAAAAAAAYA/YtCvCIxNVe8/s1600/1.jpg

See 2nd paragraph and 3rd paragraph. You report a crime and you give a formal request to the Sherriff’s Office for them to investigate.

A copy of that request would be a start to fulfilling the RTK request.

Previously requested.

“WE would like view any and all documents that relate to the break in of your office that you reported to the Sheriff.

It’s apparent there is litigation going on.

That is not the concern at the moment.

Since there was a break-in it would only stand to reason that there would be correspondence from you reporting this to the board, other town employees and outside agencies, by letter, memo or email.

Also any invoices for purchases of additional security equipment, hardware, software or analysis of security within the building, computer system (and network security), rekeying locks and vehicles or anything else that relates to the incident you reported to the Sheriff’s office and made public by the Keene Sentinel.”

Again, to reiterate and reinforce the objective, the Sentinel Article was attached simply because Joan Morel was avoiding the request for information about any crimes occurring in the Town of Winchester property between 2005 and 2010. That was used as an example.

The original request was made to see if it produced information about crimes involving drugs, vehicles violations, resisting arrest, disorderly conduct, etc. That was the original intent. The newspaper article was simply a coincidence and used as an example.

More specific information continued to be requested and when the newspaper article came out, it seemed like an obviously easy example to use but maybe that was just wishful thinking.

A couple of observations when reading your email.

1.) You apparently only want to see things your way and not the way of others or even of the law.

2.) The court case, which I previously stated to you is of no interest is something you continue to bring up.

a.) I requested documents related to YOU reporting a break in at YOUR police station, to anyone, I am most interested in correspondence to your superiors and other town personnel about that incident.

b.) I don’t recall that someone was actually charged with breaking into your police station. But if that did happen, please let me what agency did the charging.

c.) The Court case involves an employee, Dan Reppucci, you had terminated for being insubordinate. It seems you ordered him to violate his own constitutional rights when you ordered him to answer questions in a criminal investigation from public information, much of which is already on line . You tried to cover up your mistake by saying it was an internal investigation. The other thing that is bothersome is that you didn’t follow your own police depart. policies. Both of your policies state a person has a right to speak with an attorney in either a criminal or internal investigation.

d.) It appears that the Town of Winchester and YOU prevailed, because you and some others, including in your police depat., to put it kindly distorted the truth, made things up, didn’t follow the law, enlisted the aid of others and quite frankly, if you end up in a trial with a judge and jury, you will all look like buffoons and surely Dan will win and all your secrets will be told.

e.) Another words had the judge realized the issues were due process issues, for instance – how can someone be suspended by their employer for failing to answer questions in a criminal investigation? The answer, they can’t – that’s why Garrity came about. Had you just done an internal investigation instead of reporting a crime we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

f.) The employee, Dan, is not attempting to appeal to the New Hampshire Supreme Court, he already has. Perhaps you mean he is trying to prevail at the New Hampshire Supreme Court. We certainly wish him the best because we have every intention of finding out what you are doing to do your jobs and not break the law.

That being said, stop throwing road blocks in the way of legitimate requests for information about what is going on in town. Since you and the Town hall have created an environment that is hostile to requests to view documents, we no longer wish to risk being targeting by you or other members of the town when requesting to view this information. By law, we DO NOT have to provide you information when making a request. The reason is so that people aren’t’ retaliated against when they do not feel comfortable providing information that the police or town can use against them down the road.

It doesn’t seem too difficult getting information from other towns and agencies.

Do you have something to hide?

We now chose to exercise our right to anonymity by paying for and having faxed or mailed any documents that RTK laws require that you give us copies of.

You seem to be on a fishing expedition of what information I am requesting, I have no information. I am asking for you, as the public entity to provide the any and all information required by you under the RTK laws of the State of NH to provide to the public.

The RTK Law is simple and provides for the Public Entity to answer in the following way,

a.) There is no information.

b.) There is information and this is what it is and how much it will cost for copies and how should we provide those copies to you?

There is information but legally we do not have to provide it and this is why.

c.) You pick what your answer is and let me know via email.

An example of why people are afraid are because you and the Town did to target Brian Jordan, by giving a no trespass order and by having your police depart follow him around and stalk him, including Nate Jette who you fired.

It’s easy to see why you have so many issues in your department and such a great turnover rate of officers and thus waste of taxpayer dollars.

Instead of continuing to beat around the bush, I would think that better use of your time and taxpayer dollars would be to just answer the request so you can go back to work on solving crimes or whatever it is you do.

Again it is illegal to require a person to provide a name, address, phone number or otherwise force someone to identify themselves when making a RTK request. That is the law.

It is also unreasonable on your part, or the Town’s part to expect citizens to know specifically what you call a document, whether the document is typed or written in crayon or the other restrictive and prohibitive demands you make on your website to citizens to provide information when making a RTK request.

The RTK laws are designed to allow the public access to the government.

If this request continues to be denied I will go to the newspapers.
___________________________________________________
fromGary Phillips
reply-togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
ccjmorel@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 28, 2010 at 1:29 PM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

Thank you for your acknowledgement of my timely response to your request. Chief G.A. Phillips
____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens
togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
ccjmorel@winchester.nh.gov,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov
dateTue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM
subjectRe: Town Buildings
Concerned Citizens to gphillips, jmorel, selectmen
show details 12/28/10

Your response is pompous.

Read my email and don’t flatter yourself when I am certainly not complimenting you on what is only a very bad, condescending way of treating the public.

And I am taking this to the media and the Attorney General’s office as you are violating my civil rights. From what I have seen you have a history of violating peoples civil rights.

My email to you wasn’t my acknowledgement of any timely response by you.

Proof again you have a habit of putting words in my mouth.

Had you read my response it was a response telling you about the many times you didn’t respond timely and the many times you put words in my mouth and how you continue to put roadblocks up to citizens requesting information about the truth.

We must have struck a nerve and you must have something to hide or you wouldn’t try so hard to keep things secret.

It’s so obvious why you have so many problems when you are unable and incapable of responding to a citizens email request in an adult like, mature like manner.

You aren’t going to make the requests go away by ignoring people like us, who have every intention of leaving no stone unturned.

You can cover your ears and you can stick your head under your blankets but until you take responsibility for your actions by providing the documents requested, which will provide the truth to the questions asked, those questions will remain and those questions will continue to be asked.

So what do we need to do to get you to cooperate and get us the requested information? _____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens
tojmorel@winchester.nh.gov
ccGary Phillips ,
selectmen@winchester.nh.gov,
bmayer@upton-hatfield.com,
WinchesterInformer@gmail.com,
winchesternhcorruption@gmail.com
dateWed, Dec 29, 2010 at 2:24 PM
subjectFwd: Town Buildings

Some in Winchester may have confidence in the police department, don’t speak for the rest of us please. We know better. They have a history and a track record.

We prefer to deal with them by getting documents other than in person.

The police department can’t even acknowledge email requests so it’s laughable that you expect us to keep asking for a response.

So far we haven’t gotten any response for the request for documents related to criminal activity at the police department in June of 2009 or any other dates for that matter.

For instance the letter to the Sheriff.

We know the Sheriff’s office was conducting a criminal investigation at the police station.

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/documents-criminal-investigation.html

We know your chief wrote a letter requesting the assistance of the Sheriff’s Dept to conduct that investigation.

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cheshire-county-sheriff-investigation.html

What is so hard about acknowledging that?

Now were there any measures taken to secure town property or notify the insurance company for instance? 

So you see there are documents out there.

As to the ongoing court case you refer to. What one is that? I am not familiar with it.

I hope you aren’t referring to Dan Reppuci. That court case involves an internal investigation, not a criminal investigation.

Dear Concerned Citizens:

Any reasonably described non-exempt record is made available for review during the regular business hours of all public bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such public bodies or agencies.

Winchester has confidence in its Police Department. That department determines what can be released from files regarding any criminal activity. This request seems to refer to records possibly related to an on-going court case, as Chief Phillips has written.
Sincerely,
Joan Morel
________________________________________________
Gary Phillips to me, jmorel
show details 12/30/10

Dear Concerned Citizens, in an effort to satisfy your request and save yourself, the Winchester Town Administrator and the Winchester Police Department valuable time I will offer this solution to you. The copies of the qualified documents that you have requested will be made available for you after reproduction costs are paid to the Town of Winchester, NH.

You may pick up the document copies at the Winchester NH Selectman's office located at 1 Richmond Road in Winchester any time during regular business hours during the week of January 3, 2011 ending January 6, 2010. The reproduction cost is in the amount of $19.00, (20 reproducted documents).

The documents include any security invoices that could possibally have any connection with the newspaper article or same general time frame as well as a copy of every document included in Winchester case file IN08-385. I have included even notes and dispatch logs in addition to the 13 pages of the report.

Any other documents you have made a reference to are either part of a qualified official Winchester Police Department internal investigation and are exempt from disclosure under NH RSA Chapter 91-A or do not exist.
__________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to gphillips
show details 12/31/10

We are conducting our own limited investigation into the allegations being made on both sides by getting as much information as possible, regardless of the source. It is the facts that we are interested in.

I want to make sure we are clear and in those documents you say you are providing, included are the following, as they relate specifically to a crime you reported to the County Sheriff.

1.) Cheshire County Sheriff Investigation #09-63-OF – a criminal investigation that began after your report of a possible crime occurring at the WPD. Sheriff Foote has already made public statements that the investigation conducted at the WPD, by his Deputy, at your request was a criminal investigation and that his department never conducted ANY internal investigations at the WPD. This report hand delivered to you.

2.) A copy of the letter YOU provided to the Sheriff dated around June 29, 2009.

3.) A copy of the letter provided by the Sherriff, signed by Capt. Trevor Croteau that acknowledges hand delivering that report to you.

4.) A copy of the “Administrative Warning”, on Office of the Sheriff letterhead, dated 7/9/09 and signed by Dan Reppucci, Kelvin Macie and witnessed by you.

These documents all relate to that Criminal Investigation that was conducted at the WPD, by the Sheriff’s Deputy, at your request and have all been previously made public. The Sheriff has already stated that these documents in no way are connected with ANY investigations conducted at the WPD.

The grievance letter, your response to that grievance letter, any policy you provided or the Internal Investigation report that you prepared, all of which were provided to the Sheriff are not being requested, nor wanted.

All documents requested are public documents regardless of how you choose to classify them, even it you choose to comingle them with and make them part of another file that you deem may contain records that may be confidential in nature.

What is not confidential in nature is RTK information. Criminal reports and investigations are public information.

Please adjust the amount owed, if any additional amount needs to be added if any of these items were not part of your original calculation of $19.00 that you presented the other day.

Thanks
_______________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens to Gary, jmorel, selectmen
show details Jan 4

There has been no response from you as to whether or not the requested documents include the CC Sheriffs Report#09-63-OF, the correspondence between you and the Sheriff’s department relative to the crime you reported and the documents you received from them, the Administrative Warning the Sheriff’s Department used in that criminal investigation as well as any other documents in your possession that are public RTK documents and pertain to the crime you reported .

Sheriff Foote has provided several letters, one dated May 17, 2010 and one dated July 15, 2010 both stating that the investigation you asked him to conduct was a criminal investigation conducted by his department and not an internal investigation.

In fact he goes so far as to say his department never conducted any internal investigations for the Town of Winchester and he certainly never conducted any on Dan Reppucci.

That creates a contradiction between your story and Dan Reppucci’s.

Those documents can be viewed at the following link:
http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/documents-criminal-investigation.html
on the Winchester Corruption Blog.

Please respond back so we can move this request along by sending you appropriate amount of money so that we can get the documents.

You continue to put restraints on us when trying to access this information or ignore us when we are trying to contact you. 

We would appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
___________________________________________________
Gary Phillips
reply-togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
toConcerned Citizens
dateTue, Jan 4, 2011 at 9:44 AM
subjectRE: Town Buildings

You should plan to pay the previous stated amount of $19.00 to the Town of Winchester at the Selectman's office when you pick up the documents at that location.
____________________________________________________
Concerned Citizens
togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
dateWed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:41 PM
subjectRe: Town Buildings

Since we haven’t heard from you and to simplify things for you. Specifically related to the Sheriff’s documents and letters to you and from you, the Sheriff’s administrative warning and any other documents specifically related these previously requested documents.

Here’s a link showing you exactly what the documents are we are inquiring whether are or are not included in the documents you refer to as costing $19.00 that you provided and you sent to the town hall to be picked up.

http://winchesternhcorruption.blogspot.com/p/cheshire-county-sheriff-investigation.html

The Sheriff’s documents are partly down the page, the letters to and from you are below that and the Administrative Warning that the Sheriff’s used is at the bottom.

Please let us know if all of these, none of these or some of these are included in your packet, per the RTK law.

If they are not provided please give a reason why, per the RTK law, which requires if documents are not available an explanation of why they are not available or if they will be available at some future date, when they will be available.

It really doesn’t look good when you continue to avoid answering direct questions that pertain to this RTK request and which you should simply answers with simple direct answers.

We’re not looking for information that some sort of classified information status.

Thank you.
______________________________________________________
Gary Phillips to me, jmorel
show details Jan 6

Dear Concerned Citizens The documents you have made reference to in your followup e-mails of Friday December 31, 2010 and again on Tuesday January 4, 2011 are not included in the packet located at the Selectman's office for the reason(s) you already received in my e-mail to your web site Thursday December 30, 2010.

If the documents you made reference to exist in the possession of the Winchester Police Department than they are part of a Winchester, New Hampshire Police Department internal investigation and are exempt from disclosure under NH RSA Chapter 91-A
_______________________________________________
fromConcerned Citizens
togphillips@winchester.nh.gov
dateThu, Jan 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM
subjectRe: Town Buildings

Responding to your email, I have to say there were a few chuckles when first reading your response. Your response that you sent an email to my website would have meant that the Google’s website was my website. That would meant I was rich, very rich. FYI - what you really did was send an email to Google’s website where the email account you were responding to was located. Your email was then retrieved from Google’s website after someone logged into that email account. Trust me, had the Google website been “my” website, paperwork would have been filed in superior court 2 weeks ago.

Seriously, we’ve made it clear to you, yet you seem unable to comprehend what we have asked for or you are deliberately refusing to provide what we have asked for.

The law is clear that only the reports generated by an internal investigation are to remain confidential. Supporting external documents and documentation are not to remain confidential, at best they can only be redacted for confidentiality purposes and only for those purposes under the law.

Legally, under the law, you do not have the right to just blanekly deny the entire RTK request for this information.

The Town’s and police departments ignorance of the law is not only appalling, it’s concerning. It is the reason the people need to be educated.

What is so hard about providing information that would put an end to speculation if you have nothing to hide?

Here is the law you are not following:

The public body must have a basis for invoking the exemption and may not
simply mark a document “confidential” in an attempt to circumvent disclosure. In determining whether a governmental record must be disclosed,“the emphasis should be placed on the potential harm that will result from disclosure, rather than simply promises of confidentiality, or whether the information has customarily been regarded as confidential.”

Goode v. LBA, 148 N.H. 551, 554-55 (2002). To best effectuate the purposes of the Rightto-Know law, whether information is “confidential” must be determined objectively, and not based on the subjective expectations of the party generating it.

Your response to a reconsideration, of your original response, that the sheriff's investigation and those supporting documents are not part of your internal investigation would be appreciated so we can conclude this matter.

Thank you

No comments:

accutane