Monday, August 29, 2011



                            Councillor Integrity

 
In my opinion Mr. Fillmore’s recent insightful letter in the Lisbon Reporter gives irrefutable evidence that Councillor Pomelo has a serious integrity problem.


I feel that all Councillors should obey all the laws of the town they govern.


How can we have any confidence in a councillor who willfully selects certain laws to obey and rejects others. Willful disregard for law speaks directly to the character of a person.

This also clarifies the councillors recent obsession with silencing the public at town Council Meetings. A resident can’t bring councillors indiscretions to light when they aren’t allowed to speak.

Our Lisbon Police department should enforce all laws equally. When the Police refuse to enforce laws equally they are perceived as the enforcement arm for the few and become someone to be feared instead of respected.

I know we have a number of fine Officers that take great pride in their jobs. Its time that they realize what selective enforcement is doing to their own reputations.

Now that this matter has been brought to the attention of our Police, I hope they will take their oath seriously and treat all residents equally regardless of the offenders political standing.

Joe Hill

Saturday, August 27, 2011

Censorship Lisbon Style

CENSORSHIP LISBON STYLE

Eldridge and his staff have sunk to a new low lately and no one was the wiser. The staff prepares the minutes to the Town Council meetings and workshops. These minutes are supposed to be an accurate reflection of what was discussed and took place during the meeting/workshop. These minutes become “Public Records” once they are approved by the Town Council.

However, if you review the videos of the August 2, 2011 meeting and the minutes on the town of Lisbon web site, you will see there are many items missing from the minutes. I personally brought out during the meeting on August 2, 2011, the $32,500 misappropriated from the Economic Community Development Department. Eldridge claimed the transaction was a legal transaction and the Town of Lisbon was going after the funds through a civil suit. This conversation never took place according to the minutes. A prime example of censorship; if it is not part of the Public Record then it never took place.

Also during the August 2, 2011 meeting, I went into detail why the proposed amendment to the Council Working Rules was impossible to comply with because the wording was so screwed up. This was an embarrassment to the author of the change, Vice Chairman Councilor Pomelow. We do not want this council to look stupid or show how inept they truly are so we do not put this conversation into the minutes of the meeting. Again, censorship by Eldridge and his staff; if it is not in the Public Record then it does not exist even through it is on the video.

When you want something to go away, you simply do not publish it. This is the case of the minutes to the July 19th, 2011 Town Council meeting. There are no minutes for July 19th’s minute posted to the Town of Lisbon web site. Now this is truly censorship, just don’t publish it and everyone will forget about it.

The Town Council Workshop held on July 26, 2011 is mind boggling. I attended this workshop and listened to the entire debate on Charter Amendments. The discussion was never videotaped and I can understand why after reading the minutes of the workshop. I am amazed by these councilors and the town manager. I understood at the end of the discussion there was more work to be done on the Charter Amendments by the town attorney. This is reflected in the minutes. However, there are eight (8) Charter Amendments outlined in the minutes and another to be considered. The Municipal Budget Question for Ballot prepared by Councilor Cote was not included. Instead the minutes reflect “By general consent, the Council decided to place this item on the next agenda and to have Roger Therriault prepare the language changes for the Charters for Council review.” The next TWO agendas have come and gone along with a workshop and this item was NEVER on the agendas. Again, this is a clear demonstration of censorship by Eldridge and his staff.

Also, in the minutes of this workshop is a statement which reads “The Council discussed each of the following charter amendments and by general consent asked that the Town Manager place them on the warrant for the November 8 Election.” I do not believe this statement is accurate because the town attorney had to do additional work on some of the items and the question of the Municipal Budget was never resolved so how can they authorized the town manager to put these changes on the warrant for the November 8 Election. At the workshop, Roger Therriault stated the list of changes need to be narrowed down because the residents will not read all of the changes if there are too many on the ballot. The minutes reflect more work was to be done before the amendments would be ready and yet according to the minutes the council authorized the town manager to place the changes on the warrant for the November ballot. It is truly amazing how Eldridge and his staff manipulate the minutes of the Town Council meeting/workshops to meet their needs.

It is the responsibility and duty of the town manager to ensure all administrative matters pertaining to the operation of the Town of Lisbon are accurate and reflect the truth. It would appear once again Eldridge has no clue as to what the truth is and how to perform his administrative duties. Eldridge slips these minutes right under the noses of the Council because they believe him to be the best thing since the invention of peanut butter. The truth of the matter is Eldridge has the council wrapped right around his finger and they never read or question anything Eldridge presents to them.

WAKE UP COUNCILORS AND SMELL THE COFFEE. YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED BY ELDRIDGE AND YOU DO NOT EVEN REALIZE IT.



Larry A. Fillmore
Concerned Citizen

Wednesday, August 17, 2011

Who will police the "Lisbon Seven ?"

    Over the last few years it has become obvious our councilors are either unable or unwilling to police their own.


   There has been  example after example of questionable behavior with no end in site.


   We have seen Councilor Pomelow 
apparently breaking the traffic laws by using our residential streets as a parking lot for large tractor trailers, sometimes loaded in excess of 60,000  lbs .We have also seen the Pomelow's  use their residence as a business without the proper municipal licenses. 


Councilor Pomelow isn't the only councilor with problems.


  We have also seen  Councilor Bowie  vote time and time again on council items when he had a conflict.


     1.  He voted on the Police Budget when part of his family income is derived from the Police Department.


     2.  Last Fall he voted on a matter directly related to his own recall.

          It is my understanding, (from town source) the town manager, most of the councilors and the town lawyer all recognised this conflict but decided  to let his deciding vote stand even though it  was an obvious egregious conflict of interest.


If we cant rely on the council to police its own and we are   unable to recall councilors, due to the newly passed recall rules that almost guaranteed a recall free term ,what can we do?

I think we owe our councilors a chance to do the right thing and clean up this mess. No one knows what needs to be done and how to do it more than our councilors.

It is our job to make sure they get the encouragement needed to make the necessary changes.

Call your councilors and let them know you aren't stupid,  you see what is happening  and you have had enough. Tell them the law is for EVERYONE.

Joe Hill


  


          

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Massive conflict of interest

***********************************
 Councilor Bowie's wife working as an administration assistant with the Police Department  poses a massive conflict of interest  for Mr. Bowie.  


 Mr Bowie should recuse himself  not only on pay issues affecting his wife but on ALL  Police Department business.


As long as Mrs. Bowie works for the PD, the department has indirect if not direct leverage on one of the  council votes.  If Mr. Bowie doesn't push the PD agenda the  department has the ability to affect the quality of life in the Bowie household.


 It could even effect their income. The threat of job loss is always  there. A department head can always find a legitimate reason to fire an employee.


State and Federal lawmakers are never allowed to pass  legislation that directly affects their own business ventures .Why shouldn't we hold our local politicians to the same standard. Mr Bowie shouldn't be allowed to vote on matters that could potentially affect his family income.


I am surprised this obvious conflict has been overlooked for so long.
 
 Mr. Larochelle  has often talked about the council policing itself .This conflict is a good place to start.




Joe
************************************

Monday, August 1, 2011

Lisbon Councilors unable to police their own

    If Lisbon Councilors are unable to police their own ranks should they be allowed to pass regulations for the rest of us.


   On my way to Sunday breakfast, I noticed a large truck parked on the street in front of a  councilors home. This vehicle is well above the weight limit for the  roads in the  housing development and an obvious breach of traffic regulations.


   This has been an ongoing problem for a number of years without any solution.  It  appears that this councilor is getting special privileges from the town Manager and  Police Department.   Is there a "quid pro quo?"


 This very councilor votes on every police matter including the salary increases of the members of the police department. She also voted to renew  the Town Managers contract. 


   This also reflects on the integrity of the other Council members 
that allow this behavior.  


    If the Council is unable to police their own maybe its time to 
find  replacements  with better character.


by Joe


    

Government spying on your computer

Congress out to spy on your 'puter


If Congress had to name laws honestly, it would be called the "Forcing Your Internet Provider to Spy On You Just In Case You're a Criminal Act of 2011" -- a costly, invasive mandate that even the co-author of the Patriot Act, Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wisc.), says "runs roughshod over the rights of people who use the Internet."