Alton Tries to Silence its Citizens

[lagoon]

From the Union Leader, gotta think this will backfire on Alton Selectmen for sure.

THE UNION LEADER

Arrested in Alton: Selectmen silence a critic
On Feb. 3, Alton’s Board of Selectmen had a town resident arrested for criticizing them. This is not going to end well for the town.

At the board meeting that evening, resident Jeffrey T. Clay sat down to speak during the time allotted for public comments. The board allows each speaker five minutes, and Clay brought a timer to make sure he got his — and the selectmen got theirs.

Clay, a longtime critic of the board, according to the Laconia Daily Sun, which first reported the story, immediately asked all members to resign for their “poor actions as selectmen,” “poor decisions” and “continued violations of the citizens’ rights here in Alton.”

At that last phrase, Selectman David Hussey raised his hand, said “This is character assassination,” and walked out of the room to fetch the chief of police, the town video (www.alton.nh.gov/Videos.asp) shows. Exactly 38 seconds had elapsed between the time Clay stated his name for the record and Hussey moved to shut him up.

The board voted to end the public comment section, claiming that Clay had uttered “defamatory” and “libelous” statements. (Good luck proving that in court.) Clay kept talking, and Chief Ryan Heath came to escort him out, the Daily Sun reported. When Clay refused to stop speaking, Heath arrested him.

Elected officials present themselves for criticism, much of it unjustified, the moment they file to run for office.

They may choose to ignore it, respond to it, even mock it. But they may not have their critics arrested.

We suspect that Alton taxpayers are about to spend a good deal of money in legal fees for that civics lesson.

- See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150223/OPINION01/150229758#sthash.UHmUR3IS.dpuf

[dickiej]

Wow.....the underbelly of living in a small town, eh? I might remind the selectmen that lots of blood has been shed in our history protecting citizens rights to criticize the government. If they're going to run for office they need to have thick skin and take the criticism. It's not always pleasant, but as American citizens we do have the right to voice our opinion.

[Rusty]

The selectmen didn't have the citizen arrested, they asked the police chief to remove him. The citizen was told by the chief many times to stop talking and leave the room. The citizen refused to leave and kept talking. The chief had no choice but to arrest him. He would not have been arrested if he would have followed the chiefs instructions.

Why do some citizens have to harass public servants with comments like that gentleman made? I know, free speech...but gee whiz. :confused:

[Merrymeeting]

And it's incidents like this that result in fewer and fewer people choosing to volunteer to fill these roles.

Most town offices, including Selectmen, now have only one candidate who therefore wins by default. Many seem to forget that the majority of these roles in small towns are unpaid, volunteer positions, not ones that are typically filled by "career politicians".

[ITD]

If they can't handle public criticism they should not be in public office, the selectmen should have given him his 5 minutes, he probably would have gone home satisfied, the selectmen would have forgotten about it in about 10 minutes and it would have been over. Instead, they need to exert their authority and make mountain out of molehill. The town will end up paying for this, it should in my opinion.

[wifi]

If a citizen is given five minutes to speak, short of emitting vulgar language, the citizen has the right to speak his mind. Nobody, including the police, has the right to determine or punish what he says. I seem to remember a similar scene in Gilford.

I put up with more than five continuous minutes of unpleasant criticism at work most every day... no one gets arrested.

[Mr. V]

I hope the guy who was arrested has the sense to talk to a lawyer about this.

*I smell a lawsuit*

[Merrymeeting]

If they can't handle public criticism they should not be in public office, the selectmen should have given him his 5 minutes, he probably would have gone home satisfied, the selectmen would have forgotten about it in about 10 minutes and it would have been over. Instead, they need to exert their authority and make mountain out of molehill. The town will end up paying for this, it should in my opinion.

In normal circumstances, most would agree. But in this case, this is a "citizen" who has been continually disruptive, refuses to conform to Robert's Rules and other norms of public behavior in meetings, and is preventing the meeting from proceeding.

At some point it stops being free speech and just becomes obnoxious.

[P-3 Guy]

In normal circumstances, most would agree. But in this case, this is a "citizen" who has been continually disruptive, refuses to conform to Robert's Rules and other norms of public behavior in meetings, and is preventing the meeting from proceeding.

At some point it stops being free speech and just becomes obnoxious.

Speech can be both obnoxious and protected by the First Amendment. It's not an either/or proposition. If everyone in government agreed with what everyone else said, we wouldn't need a Constitutional amendment protecting speech.

I don't know how it works in Alton, but generally when citizens at a Selectmen's meeting get a chance to address the board, the rules are that they have a set time and that whatever is said stays within the bounds of decorum. There are no Roberts Rules involved - no one is making a motion or taking a vote. Based on what was contained in the editorial, it doesn't sound like any rules were broken, just some thin-skinned public officials got their feathers ruffled and overreacted.

[Woodsy]

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is not up for debate...

If the meeting rules of the Alton Selectmen are such that John Q. Public gets 5 minutes to speak.... then the Selectmen have to abide by those rules. They are Public Servants and as such public scrutiny & criticism is part of the job.

Too bad if they didn't like what he had to say... I say we should be happy for the people like Mr. Clay who go to these meetings and voice their opinion. Too many people nowadays just don't care....

Woodsy

[secondcurve]

In normal circumstances, most would agree. But in this case, this is a "citizen" who has been continually disruptive, refuses to conform to Robert's Rules and other norms of public behavior in meetings, and is preventing the meeting from proceeding.

At some point it stops being free speech and just becomes obnoxious.

I have met this fellow. As we all have, I'm sure. I am certain that most Alton residents would agree his actions are counter productive. However, rather than let the gentlemen speak his mind for 5-minutes and further prove he is an idiot the selectmen took it upon themselves to prove they are idiots. There is a time and a place to call the police and this wasn't one of them.

[Merrymeeting]

I have met this fellow. As we all have, I'm sure. I am certain that most Alton residents would agree his actions are counter productive. However, rather than let the gentlemen speak his mind for 5-minutes and further prove he is an idiot the selectmen took it upon themselves to prove they are idiots. There is a time and a place to call the police and this wasn't one of them.

Thanks secondcurve. I was hoping to hear from someone with first (or second) hand experience here.

The impression I was left with after reading about this is that the citizen WAS given his 5 minutes, and then refused to stop when his time was up. I stand corrected and agree he should have been given his time.

[Rusty]

Below is the Board Policy Public Participation at Meetings

Question: Did the citizen break any of the rules in paragraph 3 ?

TOWN OF ALTON

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT BOARD MEETINGS

The primary purpose of the Board of Selectmen’s meetings is to conduct the business of the Town. The Board encourages residents to attend Board meetings so that they may become acquainted with the operation and programs of the Town. All official meetings of the Board shall be open to the press and the public. However, the Board reserves the right to meet and to adjourn or recess a meeting at any time. The Board also reserves the right to enter non-public session at any time, in accordance with the provisions of RSA 91-A:3.

Public participation in the Board’s regular meetings is a privilege that the Board has adopted in order to assure that persons who wish to appear before the Board and bring matters to its attention may be heard. At the same time, in order to assure that it may conduct its meetings properly and efficiently, the Board adopts as policy the following procedures and rules pertaining to public participation at Board meetings:

1. At regularly scheduled Board meetings, the agenda will reflect two (2) times during the meeting that allows for public input. Speakers will be allotted five (5) minutes per person unless extended by approval of the Board.
2. Complaints regarding individual employees, other individuals and/or any matter that may, in the opinion of the Board infringe on another persons rights of privacy will not be allowed, such matters must be directed to the Town Administrator during normal business hours at Town Hall.
3. When addressing the Board, all speakers are to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Obscene, libelous, defamatory or violent statements will be considered out of order and will not be tolerated. The Board Chair may terminate the speaker’s privilege to address the Board if the speaker does not follow these rules of order.
4. If a speaker does not follow these rules after being warned to do so by the Board Chair they may be removed from the meeting. Persistent violations of these rules may result in loss of the privilege to address the Board.

Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is to provide the Board with an opportunity to receive directly from citizens any concerns, desires, or hopes they may have for the community.

Procedure:

A. Persons wishing to be heard must state their name(s), and address and state the issue(s) they wish to be heard on.
B. Persons should try to speak directly to the issue, as briefly—and fully—as possible.
C. Persons should try to be specific about what they want acted upon -–if that is the case—by the Board.
Ground Rules:

A. The Chairman of the Board conducts public input.
B. The Chairman indicates how much time will be allowed for public input.
C. The Chairman will call on those wishing to be heard.
D. No discussion on individual personalities (good or bad) is permissible in public session.
E.The Board will make no decisions during Public Input.
F. Any person whose conduct is disruptive or disorderly will be ordered to cease and desist from such behavior. Should their behavior continue after due warning, they will be removed from the meeting room.

Adopted this 14th day of January, 2015, by the Alton Board of Selectmen


R. Loring Carr, Chairman
Marc DeCoff, Vice Chairman
Cydney Johnson, Selectman
Lou LaCourse, Selectman
David Hussey, Selectman

[upthesaukee]

http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150224/NEWS0606/150229668

[fatlazyless]

If someone is critical of a selectman in a town meeting, does that make it ok for the selectman to have that person arrested? No way - Jose!

Something like this also recently happened in Gilford, and it actually went to a trial court where the judge said something like "while the defendant may have been rude, he was not breaking any laws, and people do have the right of free expression.....up to an un-determined point."

After what happened in Gilford, I betcha the local Town of Alton prosecutor decides to drop it as not acceptable for prosecution...and respectfully suggests for the selectman to get a grip on himself and what happens at town meetings, and go saw up some firewood for an hour or so to just get over his (the selectman) being disrespected.

[BroadHopper]

I think they had a similar incident when a concerned citizen was arrested by the selectmen last year. Higher court overturn the lower court decision. It was a costly battle.

[Merrymeeting]

The video is here. You can watch and decide for yourself.

http://www.alton.nh.gov/Videos.asp

[Rusty]

If someone is critical of a selectman in a town meeting, does that make it ok for the selectman to have that person arrested? No way - Jose!



As I said before: "The selectmen didn't have the citizen arrested, they asked the police chief to remove him. The citizen was told by the chief many times to stop talking and leave the room. The citizen refused to leave and kept talking. The chief had no choice but to arrest him. He would not have been arrested if he would have followed the chiefs instructions."

Watching the video, IMO the citizen made some defamatory remarks against the selectmen.
Definition of defamatory: (of remarks, writing, etc.) damaging the good reputation of someone.

[HellRaZoR004]

I see a very expensive lawsuit coming. There is absolutely nothing in what he said that was defamatory. They closed down public input, arrested him, and opened public input after he was escorted out of the room. This video shows it all.

[AC2717]

my only two cents on this topic
the town police are more in trouble, the selectman have a right to request the police chiefs presence to regulate the person if warranted. Police chief did not have probable cause to request him to stop talking nor probable cause to arrest him

[LIforrelaxin]

Did the man get charged with anything? Or did the Police chief simply take him into custody to remove him?

The board of selectman have the right to ask somebody to leave or have them removed, if that person is interjecting themselves in a disruptive way.

I actually have no problem with what seems to have happened, as long as the person wasn't charged with anything... This person has a track record of disrupting meetings, has been warned time and time again, and was finally dealt with in a way, that will hopefully teach him a lesson.

If he hasn't been charged with anything then there is no "further cost".... he was given a chance to speak, he was rude and orderly, and was removed... I know that some liberal feel good atty. will argue that his basic rights where violated... But where they really???? He brought a timer... come one really??? get the guy some help he probably needs it.... he was purposely trying to bring this on himself... end of story.....

[DBreskin]

Although this is not the main topic of this thread, there are several references to the term "libelous..statements" including paragraph 3 of the Alton public participation rules. It is impossible to be libelous while speaking, since by definition libel is written, not spoken. A spoken falsehood would be called slander.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

Google the guy arrested. Jeffrey T. Clay. He seems to have a history of this stuff.

[Rusty]

Removed video.

[SIKSUKR]

Looks like a troublemaker to me.Has been escorted out of previous meetings 3 times.Had run-ins at with Newmarket school officials.

[fatlazyless]

As I said before: "The selectmen didn't have the citizen arrested, they asked the police chief to remove him.

.....duh....oopsie-doopsie.....say.....maybe I'm just not the britest bulb on the tree???

[tis]

Obviously he has a beef. I wonder what it is. He should have said something about that rather than just repeating that they should resign. It made him look rather ridiculous.

[secondcurve]

Looks like a troublemaker to me.Has been escorted out of previous meetings 3 times.Had run-ins at with Newmarket school officials.

No doubt he is a trouble maker. I think if they simply had allowed him to ramble on for 5-minutes it would have been better for all involved. Calling the officer into the room and having him watch the gentlemen while he got his 5-minutes of time would have been a better intermediate step.

Does anyone know what caused the man to be so obsessed with having the selectman resign? What is his issue?

[secondcurve]

Below is the Board Policy Public Participation at Meetings

Question: Did the citizen break any of the rules in paragraph 3 ?

TOWN OF ALTON

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AT BOARD MEETINGS

The primary purpose of the Board of Selectmen’s meetings is to conduct the business of the Town. The Board encourages residents to attend Board meetings so that they may become acquainted with the operation and programs of the Town. All official meetings of the Board shall be open to the press and the public. However, the Board reserves the right to meet and to adjourn or recess a meeting at any time. The Board also reserves the right to enter non-public session at any time, in accordance with the provisions of RSA 91-A:3.

Public participation in the Board’s regular meetings is a privilege that the Board has adopted in order to assure that persons who wish to appear before the Board and bring matters to its attention may be heard. At the same time, in order to assure that it may conduct its meetings properly and efficiently, the Board adopts as policy the following procedures and rules pertaining to public participation at Board meetings:

1. At regularly scheduled Board meetings, the agenda will reflect two (2) times during the meeting that allows for public input. Speakers will be allotted five (5) minutes per person unless extended by approval of the Board.
2. Complaints regarding individual employees, other individuals and/or any matter that may, in the opinion of the Board infringe on another persons rights of privacy will not be allowed, such matters must be directed to the Town Administrator during normal business hours at Town Hall.
3. When addressing the Board, all speakers are to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Obscene, libelous, defamatory or violent statements will be considered out of order and will not be tolerated. The Board Chair may terminate the speaker’s privilege to address the Board if the speaker does not follow these rules of order.
4. If a speaker does not follow these rules after being warned to do so by the Board Chair they may be removed from the meeting. Persistent violations of these rules may result in loss of the privilege to address the Board.

Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is to provide the Board with an opportunity to receive directly from citizens any concerns, desires, or hopes they may have for the community.

Procedure:

A. Persons wishing to be heard must state their name(s), and address and state the issue(s) they wish to be heard on.
B. Persons should try to speak directly to the issue, as briefly—and fully—as possible.
C. Persons should try to be specific about what they want acted upon -–if that is the case—by the Board.
Ground Rules:

A. The Chairman of the Board conducts public input.
B. The Chairman indicates how much time will be allowed for public input.
C. The Chairman will call on those wishing to be heard.
D. No discussion on individual personalities (good or bad) is permissible in public session.
E.The Board will make no decisions during Public Input.
F. Any person whose conduct is disruptive or disorderly will be ordered to cease and desist from such behavior. Should their behavior continue after due warning, they will be removed from the meeting room.

Adopted this 14th day of January, 2015, by the Alton Board of Selectmen


R. Loring Carr, Chairman
Marc DeCoff, Vice Chairman
Cydney Johnson, Selectman
Lou LaCourse, Selectman
David Hussey, Selectman

Rusty: As senseless as this guy is, I don't think he met the criteria that you have highlighted.

[8gv]

Rusty: As senseless as this guy is, I don't think he met the criteria that you have highlighted.

I concur.

Sometimes you have to just count to 100 (10,000?) and play the long game.

Given more time, he may have acted in a way more within the definition.

I suspect he will become more trouble for the board than they could ever have imagined.

[Just Sold]

I think that the Selectmen should have let him ramble on for his 5 minutes and let it go at that.
I lived in Atkinson, NH in the 90's and worked for the town as a camera person recording the Selectman's meetings. We had a long time resident who would make their rather odd statements/suggestions to the Selectmen that normally had nothing to do with the actual meeting or the current agenda pretty regularly. They were allowed to do this and would even be thanked by the Selectmen and then they would continue with their meeting. The resident would then be quiet for the rest of the meeting.
I think the way Atkinson handled its resident is what the Alton Selectmen should have done.

[Coolbreeze]

I think the selection were facing a person who was clearly testing the system. There was a clear history of no love between the selection and this guy. It was if they were ready to trap this guy, the closest selection to the door went for help before the guy really started his talk. The guy wasn't even yelling in a tantrum. He was level headed the entire time. A simple resolution would be to have just give him his 5 minutes and go after him after reviewing the video with a attorney. Their actions regardless of the person being a nuisance to them or a true American expressing his right to speak should not have been stopped based on what I heard. The Police chief could have caused an explosive situation with someone who could have been violent. There was no need for his involvement. Cell phone calling for assistance???? How about a radio. Did he even have any protection if this guy turned out to have a weapon????? This is the stuff stuff where you see people go postal. I am sad for the people of Alton. I did not hear anything offensive from him; I hear similar remarks about our current federal leaders and see nobody being arrested for it. What is different here than everywhere else.

[Kamper]

As I understand it, "Libel" is expressing something as fact, which is damaging to a reputation when the speaker knows it is a false statement.

A period of 'commentary' infers that facts and opinions may be expressed. It can be hard to tell the difference sometimes which is why libel and slander can be hard to prove.

That's all I think I know about that,

[dave603]

"3. When addressing the Board, all speakers are to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Obscene, libelous, defamatory or violent statements will be considered out of order and will not be tolerated. The Board Chair may terminate the speaker’s privilege to address the Board if the speaker does not follow these rules of order."

These rules seem to have been re-written this year.
I don't know if that was in there before or not, but it's
almost like they had this guy in mind when they wrote them.

[tis]

I wouldn't consider asking someone to resign or even telling them they should resign any of those things would you?

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

These rules seem to have been re-written this year.
I don't know if that was in there before or not, but it's
almost like they had this guy in mind when they wrote them.

I think you may be right, according to his blog:

In an effort to squelch my free speech rights whereby I attempt to hold the BOS accountable during public input time at BOS meetings for their willful violations of the peoples' rights, the BOS stopped airing public meetings on public TV, instituted a policy regarding pubic input (where none existed prior) limiting public input to five minutes and which dis-allows so called “personal attacks.”

Now he claims that he was hurt during the arrest.

ALTON — Right to Know advocate Jeffrey Clay said Monday that Alton Police Chief Ryan Heath physically hurt him when he was arrested for disorderly conduct at a board of selectmen's meeting on Feb. 3.

Alton's Chief of Police threw my left arm up behind my back, causing severe pain,” Clay said.

[Rusty]

"3. When addressing the Board, all speakers are to conduct themselves in a civil manner. Obscene, libelous, defamatory or violent statements will be considered out of order and will not be tolerated. The Board Chair may terminate the speaker’s privilege to address the Board if the speaker does not follow these rules of order."

These rules seem to have been re-written this year.
I don't know if that was in there before or not, but it's
almost like they had this guy in mind when they wrote them.


That's the way I understand it. The selectboard revised the policy and stopped showing live televised meetings. This aggravated Clay and now he wants them to pack their bags and go to...wherever??

Here is an article that is in the fosters this morning: (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150225/GJNEWS_01/150229692)
Clay claims he was hurt when arrested by police chief

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

ALTON — Right to Know advocate Jeffrey Clay said Monday that Alton Police Chief Ryan Heath physically hurt him when he was arrested for disorderly conduct at a board of selectmen's meeting on Feb. 3.

Clay, who has sued the Dover School Board for allegedly violating New Hampshire's laws about public meetings, was arrested by Heath after he asked members of Alton's board of selectmen to resign, during a public forum at their meeting, earlier this month.

The entire incident was captured by a local cable access television channel and posted on fosters.com. It shows that Clay sat down before the board, during the public forum, and said, “Every time I show up here, it is my most fervent hope that I am going to find that you folks have resigned. But you continue to show an unwillingness to step up to the plate and take responsibility for your poor actions as selectmen and resign. I am asking you to do that now.”

One of the board members said, “This is character assassination.”

Board Chair R. Loring Carr asked for two points of order as Clay continued to talk about the selectmen's actions. Carr asked his fellow board members if they felt Clay's statements were libelous and inflammatory.

Less than two minutes into Clay's statements, the board voted in favor of closing down their public forum because of the comments.
That did not stop Clay from speaking. He remained in his chair and started reading definitions of integrity, honesty and character.
That is when Carr told Clay, “You are done.”

Heath, who was in the audience, was asked to address the issue. He moved a set of chairs next to where Clay was sitting and approached him.
“You want to take your hands off me, please?” Clay asked Heath.

When Heath did not back away, Clay said again, “Take your hands off me, please.”
Heath told Clay that he had been asked to leave. Clay asked Heath if he was under arrest. Heath replied that he would be if Clay did not comply with his orders.

Clay again started to speak. Heath reached into his pocket, pulled out a cell phone and called for police back up.
After Clay finished reciting the definition of audacity, which means boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions, Carr warned Clay for a third time.

Heath placed Clay under arrest. As he did, he pulled on Clay's left arm and led him from the room with that arm behind his back. That is when Clay says he was physically injured.

“Alton's Chief of Police threw my left arm up behind my back, causing severe pain,” Clay said in a letter sent to Foster's editors on Monday.
Clay said in the letter that he takes no pride in being arrested, but he takes “great pride” in the First Amendment and freedom of speech, and in citizens' duties to “hold public officials accountable when they violate laws and people's trust.”

“This is exactly what I was doing when I was arrested,” Clay said.

Lt. Todd MacDougall of the Alton Police Department said Tuesday that Clay was charged with two Class B misdemeanor counts of disorderly conduct. These charges carry a fine as their maximum penalty.

Clay vowed to fight the charges against him.

[mcdude]

I hope the guy who was arrested has the sense to talk to a lawyer about this.

*I smell a lawsuit*

you mean like this?

Parent sues officer over arrest at school board meeting


http://www.laconiadailysun.com/templates/gk_twn2/images/system/emailButton.png (http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&template=gk_twn2&link=8fc6e31553ecab2e202f83f7bb40f7684d3cabc2)

<DL class=article-info> <DT class=article-info-term>Details</DT> <DD class=published>Published Date Wednesday, 25 February 2015 01:22 </DD></DL>
GILFORD — The man who objected to one of his 9th grade daughter's reading assignments at a School Board meeting last year is suing the local police lieutenant who arrested him and removed him from the meeting.
William Baer has filed a suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire seeking damages from Lt. James Leach for allegedly violating his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
"Had (Leach) of the Gilford Police Department not falsely arrested the plaintiff, without a warrant or probable cause, for exercising his right to free speech, the plaintiff would have been free from seizure, arrest, and criminal charges," wrote Concord attorney Charles Douglas in his pleading.
Baer was charged with three criminal complaints of disorderly conduct under three separate sections of the disorderly conduct law.
After a number of months, 4th Circuit Court, Laconia Division Judge Jim Carroll dismissed the charges against Baer saying, among other things, that "the court questions the constitutionality of the state's action in the sequence as memorialized by the deposition."
Because of his arrest, Baer is seeking damages because he was humiliated in front of a room filled with people and the videos went viral. A YouTube video of the incident was viewed by at least one million times.
In addition, Baer's license to carry a concealed weapon in Maine was delayed and he was temporarily held at the Canadian border because of the arrest.
Baer's children attend Gilford Schools and he said they have suffered emotional repercussions as a result of his father's public arrest.
He is seeking a unknown amount of financial compensation and legal fees.
At a regularly scheduled Gilford School Board meeting on May 5, 2014 Baer and a number of other residents attending the meeting to voice their opinions on a reading assignment.
In Baer's opinion, the book, "Nineteen Minutes" by Jody Picoult, contained a sexually explicit section that he believed was inappropriate for a ninth grader. He had made his objections known through various outlets and because of the controversy, the meeting was packed with Baer supporters and detractors. At least three newspapers reporters were there as were two people operating video cameras.
Chair Sue Allen opened public comment and limited each speaker to two minutes and a single opportunity to speak. Leach was at the meeting, in uniform and initially standing off to one side.
Baer spoke for at least two minutes and, according to the lawsuit, was told by resident Joe Wernig that his time had ended. Baer finished his thought and sat down. Wernig lives in Gilford and is an educator in the Shaker Regional School District.
Two others spoke and were followed by Wernig who said Baer are others were trying to dictate what his kids can and cannot read. Without being recognized to speak again, Baer loudly reacted that Wernig's statement was ridiculous and was told by Allen to respect other speakers. But Baer kept talking.
After a nod from Allen and Superintendent Kent Hemingway, Leach approached Baer and told him he was being asked to leave. He gave him no prior warning and Baer said, "I guess you're gonna have to arrest me."
Leach removed Baer by grabbing his wrist and leading him from the meeting room. He was handcuffed outside the glass-walled room and arrested.
While the suit is filed against Leach as an individual, according to state law he is indemnified by state law — meaning he is not personally responsible for any financial awards should Baer prevail, but the town of Gilford is.
When contacted yesterday, Leach said he was not aware of the suit

[Rusty]

"Clay stands by his statements, and has hired Sisti, who represented Pamela Smart in 1991 and several months ago successfully defended Gilford parent Billy Baer, winning his case against the Gilford police department after Baer was arrested for protesting a Gilford school’s choice of reading assignments for his daughter.A judge found Baer’s conduct was “impolite but not criminal.” Clay says his case will have a similar outcome."

Here is the article: Sisti (http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150225/NEWS0606/150229561)

[thinkxingu]

I appreciate Clay's defense of the First Amendment--where I teach, we are seeing an issue with transparency in local government which might destroy the opportunity for a new school--but I also believe there needs to be a system to keep extremists (inexact word choice, but you get it) in check.

[Mr. V]

Politicians must be thick skinned.

One price they pay for the "power" which their political position affords them is the necessity to listen to the concerns and grievances of their constituents, who are given very wide latitude when airing them, due to "Freedom of Speech."

The concern of course is: when you act to abridge or curtail free speech, where do you draw the line?

[Donzi Minx]

I thought this only happened in Mass.
As a Public Servant for the City of Beverly MA I have been using Armor All on my skin for years. You do receive your fair share of abuse from the constituents it goes with the job.

[Rusty]

Clay to file civil suit against Alton officials after his arrest (http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20150226/GJNEWS_01/150229530)


ALTON — Right to Know advocate Jeffrey Clay plans to file a civil law suit against the town of Alton’s police department and the Board of Selectmen, after he was arrested for disorderly conduct, during a public forum, Feb. 3.

Clay said on Wednesday that the board had the chief of police, or one of his officers, sitting behind him during three board meetings before his arrest date. Clay said he was informed that the board was trying to intimidate him, and make him fearful of speaking his mind.

Clay has recently been calling for all of the board’s members to resign, claiming that they have been violating the state’s Right to Know laws.

“I have repeatedly spoken to the board, regarding this issue, over the past several months in an attempt to resolve the issues without having to take them to court. Their response to my concerns, however, was silence. No discussion. No taking responsibility for their actions,” Clay said.

Clay said instead of correcting their violations, board members continued to commit them.



“That is why I asked them to resign,” Clay said. “My point was, if you are unwilling to follow the law, and respect the rights of the citizens, then they should resign.”

Police Chief Ryan Heath, who arrested Clay, has a different view on the incidents leading up to his arrest. Heath said that Clay has a script that he is reading from when he approaches the board, during their meetings. As the script continues, Clay makes personal attacks on a family member of one of the people who sits on the board.

“It is not relevant to any business being talked about,” Heath said. “He is reading from the same script about Right to Know laws, but it doesn’t specify any incident. He says, ‘You guys violated the Right to Know laws.’ Well then, when, and how?”

Heath said Clay, who was removed from board meetings twice before his arrest on Feb. 3, approached the school board with the same accusations before waging his attacks on the board of selectmen. Heath said that, according to Clay, every public official in Alton violates the Right to Know laws.



Heath said that the selectmen have adopted a series of rules for public participation, which prohibits defamatory statements, because of Clay’s scripted accusations.

As for claims that he hurt Clay while putting him under arrest, Heath said Clay is “completely embellishing.”

When removing Clay from the meeting room, he placed his left arm behind his back and walked behind him into an outside hallway, where he let Clay go until back up officers arrived.

“It’s called the escort position,” Heath said. “That’s what they teach at the police academy. There was no pressure on his arm.”

Clay said on Wednesday that his arm and shoulder are still sore, but he will not be seeking medical attention for the pain. He added that “psychologically, the entire process has been traumatizing.”

Mark Sisti of Sisti Law Offices in Chichester said he will be representing Clay as he defends himself against the two Class B misdemeanor charges against him. Sisti is also expected to file the civil suit on Clay’s behalf.



Sisti said what he saw in the video of Clay’s arrest was appalling. He intends to defend the charges against Clay by using the First Amendment, and his client’s right to free speech.

Clay, who regularly contributes letters to the editor at Foster’s Daily Democrat, has also filed lawsuits against Dover’s school board, claiming a violation of the state’s laws regarding public meetings.

[SAMIAM]

Shows the arrogance of many public officials. A better choice would have been to let him complete his statement, thank him for his contribution....even respond to points of disagreement and continue the meeting.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

As for claims that he hurt Clay while putting him under arrest, Heath said Clay is “completely embellishing.”

When removing Clay from the meeting room, he placed his left arm behind his back and walked behind him into an outside hallway, where he let Clay go until back up officers arrived.

“It’s called the escort position,” Heath said. “That’s what they teach at the police academy. There was no pressure on his arm.”

Clay said on Wednesday that his arm and shoulder are still sore, but he will not be seeking medical attention for the pain. He added that “psychologically, the entire process has been traumatizing.”

In my humble opinion, this guy is trouble. Good luck Alton.

[8gv]

Prior to my retirement I owned a business that had many "interesting" customers. There were frequent "interesting" interactions between my employees and the customers.

Inappropriate reactions on the part of my employees caused quite a few messes over the years. This caused me to preach the following:

"Let's not be shocked by the things people do. Let's just consider what the APPROPRIATE RESPONSE should be."

Whether it was somewhat planned or just fate, the board seems to have shot itself in the foot and given Clay the upper hand.

[thinkxingu]

I can't stand the title of this thread.

[MDoug]

This thread somehow reminds of the Ward Bird incident.

I still see a sign or two on back roads saying, "Free Ward Bird."

[Tired of Waiting]

I can't stand the title of this thread.

Why?

ToW

[thinkxingu]

Why?

ToW
Because it is completely biased, even though it appears that the selectmen had been proactive at preventing what appears to me is abuse of a system.

[DEJ]

If you want to see/watch biased, tune into the evening news on most any channel. IMO the title of this thread is accurate.

[SAMIAM]

Because it is completely biased, even though it appears that the selectmen had been proactive at preventing what appears to me is abuse of a system.

Abuse of the system was not letting him speak.They were clearly waiting to jump on him the minute he got started.Ranting about resigning is really not slanderous and I think they won't do well in court.

[Rusty]

Clay has been on a rampage for a few years now. Here is a good article written about him:

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

As I have read the numerous letters from Jeffrey T. Clay about facilities issues faced by the Newmarket School District, I have wondered why he is so concerned about a school system 35 miles and two counties away from where he lives in Alton. I couldn't imagine why he should be so interested in what happens in Newmarket.

After all, since I live and pay taxes in Durham, I have considered the problem faced by Newmarket Junior/Senior High School to be none of my business. However, since some of Mr. Clay's recent commentary has thrown the Oyster River Cooperative School District into the public discussion, the situation is now the business of Oyster River taxpayers, of which I am one. Additionally, Mr. Clay has chosen to comment on the affairs of the Rochester and Barrington School Districts — two more districts in which he neither resides nor votes.

Mr. Clay's frequent letters and (lately) community commentaries have attacked Newmarket school officials and other public figures with a vicious maze of charges, backed up by a baffling flood of information comprised of few facts, but a boatload of fiction. He is depending on the likelihood that readers will not have the time to track down the accuracy of his charges. He is probably correct to assume that most readers will have neither the time nor the energy to fact-check his numbers and dates and blustering conspiracy theories. So for me, the issue comes down to one crucial fact. The New Hampshire State Fire Marshall's Office has set a deadline for the Newmarket School District: the existing Newmarket Junior/Senior High School will not be allowed to open for the 2015 school year without substantial (and costly) renovation. That means that if Newmarket school officials put students in that building — as is — in September of 2015, they will be in violation of state law. The decision about whether to renovate, build a new school, or send students to another town's school is a decision for Newmarket voters to make. It is not up to Mr. Clay.



So why, as a resident of Alton, does he care?

As it turns out, Mr. Clay is a former Newmarket teacher, and he has an ax to grind. A simple Google search will turn up the public record regarding Mr. Clay's departure from Newmarket, along with his subsequent attempts to be reinstated. According to these public records, Mr. Clay was dismissed from his teaching position for multiple reasons.

You can find online: 1) several newspaper articles regarding his situation; 2) rulings by the NH Public Employee Labor Relations Board upholding the dismissal and then confirming the PELRB's own decision, followed by; 3) the NH Supreme Court's upholding of the PELRB ruling.

Mr. Clay has had his fifteen minutes of fame. Readers of his letters would do well to filter his invective — his wild, inaccurate charges and flat-out fantasies — through the lens of his grudge against the Newmarket School District, which, as affirmed by the PELRB and the NH Supreme Court, acted well within its rights to terminate Mr. Clay's employment.



And, in the interest of disclosure, I was myself a teacher for 31 years, most of that time at the Oyster River Middle School, so I am familiar with the job requirements of teachers, teacher contracts, teachers' unions, and the responsibilities of school administrators.

John Parsons

Durham

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130212/GJOPINION_0102/130219831/0/SEARCH

[LIforrelaxin]

I did a quick search on Jeffery T. Clay.... he has got a history... The clip in this thread would lead one to believe that the board acted to quickly.... However I think there is more to this story then anyone knows....

In short don't judge the Alton Board to quickly... Nor for that matter Jeffery Clay, and this situation....

What I can tell you from the clip however is that Jeffery Clay was asked repeatedly to stop, and stand down.. By both the Board of Selectmen, and by the police officer...

They had the justification to remove him for not cooperating and that is the bottom line....

He didn't speak directly on any particular issue... Rather he had a general statement that the Board needs to resign....

This is the rule that applies:

2. Complaints regarding individual employees, other individuals and/or any matter that may, in the opinion of the Board infringe on another persons rights of privacy will not be allowed, such matters must be directed to the Town Administrator during normal business hours at Town Hall.

The complaint was about each individual board member and their personal integrity....... Mr. Clay however knew that if he directed his comments at anyone individual this rule would clearly be evoked, so he instead direct his comments at the entire board to skirt this issue...

My big question in this matter, is weather or not someone on the board and Mr. Clay have crossed paths, and that this is all a bit more personal then anyone knows.

[ITD]

I did a quick search on Jeffery T. Clay.... he has got a history... The clip in this thread would lead one to believe that the board acted to quickly.... However I think there is more to this story then anyone knows....

In short don't judge the Alton Board to quickly... Nor for that matter Jeffery Clay, and this situation....

What I can tell you from the clip however is that Jeffery Clay was asked repeatedly to stop, and stand down.. By both the Board of Selectmen, and by the police officer...

They had the justification to remove him for not cooperating and that is the bottom line....

He didn't speak directly on any particular issue... Rather he had a general statement that the Board needs to resign....

This is the rule that applies:

2. Complaints regarding individual employees, other individuals and/or any matter that may, in the opinion of the Board infringe on another persons rights of privacy will not be allowed, such matters must be directed to the Town Administrator during normal business hours at Town Hall.

The complaint was about each individual board member and their personal integrity....... Mr. Clay however knew that if he directed his comments at anyone individual this rule would clearly be evoked, so he instead direct his comments at the entire board to skirt this issue...

My big question in this matter, is weather or not someone on the board and Mr. Clay have crossed paths, and that this is all a bit more personal then anyone knows.

5 minutes, they just had to listen for 5 minutes, they are just words, and they weren't even that bad. Government is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. I'm not a fan of litigation, nor am I a fan of Mr Clay, but in this case, I hope Mr Clay has a big payday.

[tbonies]

This Clay guy sounds like an idiot and got what he deserved.

[thinkxingu]

I hope Mr Clay has a big payday.

This is what's wrong with America--think about how many problems are a result of an overly litigious society. From what I've seen and read, this guy's an ambulance chaser.

[jeffk]

In my opinion it doesn't matter how annoying this guy is or what his past is. This was a time of public comment. It is reasonable to have rules of order and IF he violated them, he could be asked to stop. It is unclear to me that he did violate the rules and even if he did bend them a bit it is not in the interests of a public board to come down on citizens so they should have given him broad leeway. Of course it is up to the board members to make the decision to cut him off and they did. Now they are paying the price for their lack of patience. Was it worth it? They shut him out of his 5 minutes and now the board is going to spend many hours in legal meetings and the town will bear the costs of the legal fight. Was this a winning plan? I'll bet the board members will be cursing their intolerance before too long.

The reason we should tolerate "free speech", even when presented by annoying individuals, is that EVERYONE who speaks in opposition to something strongly supported by someone else is going to be perceived as "annoying". Maybe next year the Alton board will do something that ticks off someone else. That person might rise to speak in opposition and probably become annoying in doing it. There is a time limit and rules to prevent extremely disorderly conduct. Those seem sufficient safeguards to prevent monopoly of the boards time. Let the fools have their few minutes.

[secondcurve]

In my opinion it doesn't matter how annoying this guy is or what his past is. This was a time of public comment. It is reasonable to have rules of order and IF he violated them, he could be asked to stop. It is unclear to me that he did violate the rules and even if he did bend them a bit it is not in the interests of a public board to come down on citizens so they should have given him broad leeway. Of course it is up to the board members to make the decision to cut him off and they did. Now they are paying the price for their lack of patience. Was it worth it? They shut him out of his 5 minutes and now the board is going to spend many hours in legal meetings and the town will bear the costs of the legal fight. Was this a winning plan? I'll bet the board members will be cursing their intolerance before too long.

The reason we should tolerate "free speech", even when presented by annoying individuals, is that EVERYONE who speaks in opposition to something strongly supported by someone else is going to be perceived as "annoying". Maybe next year the Alton board will do something that ticks off someone else. That person might rise to speak in opposition and probably become annoying in doing it. There is a time limit and rules to prevent extremely disorderly conduct. Those seem sufficient safeguards to prevent monopoly of the boards time. Let the fools have their few minutes.

Jeff: you are a bright guy. Thanks for summing this up nicely.

[Seaplane Pilot]

This is what's wrong with America--think about how many problems are a result of an overly litigious society. From what I've seen and read, this guy's an ambulance chaser.

That's seems a.bit defamatory.

[thinkxingu]

That's seems a.bit defamatory.
I'm not sure if you misunderstood whom I was referring to as an ambulance chaser, but in either case there would be no reputation to be hurt and, therefore, not defamation.

However, if that was a subtle joke, bravo--subtlety is so rare these days, I assume it doesn't exist online.

[tis]

I agree with you jeffk EXCEPT that I doubt if the Selectmen will care if they have to spend a lot of money on legal fees. It's not their money they are wasting. Now if it was THEIR money it might be a different story------

[Tired of Waiting]

And remove the "Live Free or Die" !!!

I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread where the poster is willing to take "Free Speech, Redress of Government and others" away from a person just because they are a nut job and a thorn in the sides of some.

Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE." Are you kidding me!! And some of the posters on this board are OK with this?

I live in a small town that has Selectmen and is run by town meetings. We also have folks who seem to be on the nutty side. But NEVER has the board shut them down for expressing their opinion even if calling for the board to resign. But yes we have had folks removed from select and town meeting for getting unruly. That is defined as using foul language, issuing threats, or refusing to end their talk when time has expired.

I have read the town rules and watched the video and at NO time did the speaker violate the rules or the Constitution. The only violation I saw was the Selectmen violate the speakers right to free speech and redress of the Government.

Every single citizen of the town should come to the defense of Mr. Clay, not because they agree with him and his positions but because if the board can shut him down they may be next.

Do not take you rights lightly and defend those rights for every person regardless if you agree with them or not, but just because they are using your rights as well as theirs. If he looses his rights then you WILL loose yours.

ToW

[Rusty]

And remove the "Live Free or Die" !!!

I cannot believe some of the posts in this thread where the poster is willing to take "Free Speech, Redress of Government and others" away from a person just because they are a nut job and a thorn in the sides of some.

Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE." Are you kidding me!! And some of the posters on this board are OK with this?

I live in a small town that has Selectmen and is run by town meetings. We also have folks who seem to be on the nutty side. But NEVER has the board shut them down for expressing their opinion even if calling for the board to resign. But yes we have had folks removed from select and town meeting for getting unruly. That is defined as using foul language, issuing threats, or refusing to end their talk when time has expired.

I have read the town rules and watched the video and at NO time did the speaker violate the rules or the Constitution. The only violation I saw was the Selectmen violate the speakers right to free speech and redress of the Government.

Every single citizen of the town should come to the defense of Mr. Clay, not because they agree with him and his positions but because if the board can shut him down they may be next.

Do not take you rights lightly and defend those rights for every person regardless if you agree with them or not, but just because they are using your rights as well as theirs. If he looses his rights then you WILL loose yours.

ToW

I think there is one thing missing in your analysis as to why Mr. Clay was told to be quiet and get up from the table and either leave the room or sit in the audience.
The BOS took a legal and binding vote that accused Mr. Clay of using defamatory language against the board. Therefore it was not up to Mr. Clay to decide as to whether the board was right, or wrong. The chair made a motion and the board approved it. From that point on the board took the necessary action to have Clay removed and that did happen.
We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated, but now it is going to be up to the court/s to decide what the outcome will be.

So, all that being said, neither you nor I can say who has violated any laws, it will be up to the court/s to decide.

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

He may have an argument with the BOS. But the game he is playing now involves a civil suit against a police officer that was doing his job. That's dirty pool as far as I'm concerned.
Should the civil suit against Alton's Police Chief and Police Department be embraced by the people of Alton as heroic in the fight for free speech?

[DickR]

....We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated...

I don't like getting into debates where perhaps both sides were wrong at least in part, but abuse of "free speech" in this case and others gets me. Nowhere in the constitution, when talking about a person's right to speak freely, does it say that others shall be forced to listen.

[Tired of Waiting]

I think there is one thing missing in your analysis as to why Mr. Clay was told to be quiet and get up from the table and either leave the room or sit in the audience.
The BOS took a legal and binding vote that accused Mr. Clay of using defamatory language against the board. Therefore it was not up to Mr. Clay to decide as to whether the board was right, or wrong. The chair made a motion and the board approved it. From that point on the board took the necessary action to have Clay removed and that did happen.
We can all give our opinion as to whether Clay’s right to free speech was violated, but now it is going to be up to the court/s to decide what the outcome will be.

So, all that being said, neither you nor I can say who has violated any laws, it will be up to the court/s to decide.


From my post: "Here is a man who was RECOGNIZED by the board of selectmen to speak and as soon as he made a statement they, the Board, did not like they shut him down and cut his time off through "USE of FORCE."

I watched the video and Mr, Clay did not in any way use defamatory language.

"A defamatory statement is a false statement of fact that exposes a person to hatred, ridicule, or contempt, causes him to be shunned, or injures him in his business or trade."

Show me where any statement had any of those results and I'll then agree.

The selectmen voted to violate his rights because their feelings were being hurt.

As for the part of the law suite against the police any lawyer is going to name all involved with the action. The complaint against the officer is for pain and suffering as stated for his arm being bent up behind his back. Don't know if he was really hurt or not but the court will decide that.

ToW

[Tired of Waiting]

He may have an argument with the BOS. But the game he is playing now involves a civil suit against a police officer that was doing his job. That's dirty pool as far as I'm concerned.
Should the civil suit against Alton's Police Chief and Police Department be embraced by the people of Alton as heroic in the fight for free speech?

I stated they should rally to defend his "rights". They don't have to defend all of his law suits. They should put pressure on the BOS to amend the way they act in "public" meetings and how they treat those present at the meetings.

True the Courts will say if his rights were violated or not. But do you want your rights whittled away by the courts? Because that is what can and is happening in this country. Only you and your fellow citizens can stand up and DEFEND your rights.

When you stop defending your fellow citizens rights you loose yours as well. And it doesn't matter a tinkers damn if you agree with the other point of view or not.

ToW

[Tired of Waiting]

I don't like getting into debates where perhaps both sides were wrong at least in part, but abuse of "free speech" in this case and others gets me. Nowhere in the constitution, when talking about a person's right to speak freely, does it say that others shall be forced to listen.


You are right!!

No one needed to listen. But that is NOT what happened. They prevented him from speaking through the use of force.

It's a lot different not to listen to a speaker and stopping them from speaking with force.

I hope you can see the difference.

ToW

[Charlie T]

I personally think the BOS should have allowed his rant and when 5 min was up ask him to step away. If I was on the BOS I would have taken that 5 min to check email, step out for a bathroom visit, play solitaire on my phone or do anything other than listen to him. I doubt the rules state that anyone is forced to listen and pay attention during his time, he simply must be allowed to speak during his 5 min of fame.
If this guy was allowed his time he would have no recourse other than to sit down and shut up, he knew the rules and his legal rights long before he ever set foot in that room. If the BOS put any intelligent thought into it they could have avoided the unfortunate results, and the cost that is sure to result.

CT

[Mr. V]

I suspect that as he was arrested, that old line from Uncle Remus floated throught Clay's brain: "Please, bre'r fox, don't throw me into that briar patch."

He trolled the BOS perfectly.

[Natt]

I understand that this is Clays' MO. Making the same claims over and over again. Offering constructive criticism is one thing but continuing once he makes his point is simply being obstructive. The select board are basically volunteers with a complex workload. They have to set a limit.

[Tired of Waiting]

I understand that this is Clays' MO. Making the same claims over and over again. Offering constructive criticism is one thing but continuing once he makes his point is simply being obstructive. The select board are basically volunteers with a complex workload. They have to set a limit.


Agreed a limit is set. And that limit is FIVE minutes per their rules not Mr. Clay's. Once he was recognized to speak he had 5 minutes and was not finished when shut off.

ToW

[belly_button_biter]

I think they should all just resign

[dickiej]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!

[8gv]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!

Or shoot you like what happened to Putin's adversary this week!

[thinkxingu]

"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism "-Samuel Adams. Watch Sons of Liberty if you want to see how chilling it can be when the government can silence you. The whole reason for the first amendment was so you could criticize the government and they couldn't drag you out of bed some night and hang you from a tree. We are slowly abdicating our rights and allowing the government to control us. Time to read George Orwell again everybody!
Appreciate the literary reference, but I think this is much more of a Brave New World.

[Patiently Watching]

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

[Rusty]

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

So in your view reconciliation between all parties involved is to destroy a man’s career, embarrass the governing body of Alton, and cost the tax payer a large sum of money. Make an example out of one side of the issue and call it a day.

Public servants aren’t supposed to be human beings…have emotions or allowed to express their feelings while in office…suck it up or get out.

This type of attitude is why no one wants to run for any office in town government.

OK now throw the 1st amendment violation at us again!!....Geeeeezzz!!!

[8gv]

The Alton chief of police should resign and the town needs to issue an apology to this person and to the town.
'Public servants' are just that - if you cannot stand a little name calling or disagreement, perhaps the private sector (McDonald's) would be a better place...
While the individual at the center of this controversy appears to be someone who frequently pushes the boundaries, it does not constitute taking away his rights.
I hope this miscarriage of justice is very costly for the town of Alton and that other nearby local governments learn a lesson from their mistake.

I can tell you from experiance that one receives more than one's fair share of "citizen abuse" while working at McDonald's. :eek:

[Tired of Waiting]

So in your view reconciliation between all parties involved is to destroy a man’s career, embarrass the governing body of Alton, and cost the tax payer a large sum of money. Make an example out of one side of the issue and call it a day.

Public servants aren’t supposed to be human beings…have emotions or allowed to express their feelings while in office…suck it up or get out.

This type of attitude is why no one wants to run for any office in town government.

OK now throw the 1st amendment violation at us again!!....Geeeeezzz!!!

If the one side is violating the citizens rights then yes destroy a carrier, embarrass a Government body and do what ever it is that is necessary to DEFEND your rights.

Rusty, Look at your sig line: “Private property and freedom are inseparable.” — George Washington

Now go do some research on property rights and how they have been eroded by the courts. Did you know that according to the Supreme Court of the United States the town can take your property through "eminent domain" and give it to a private developer if his project when completed would raise more taxes for the town?

Here, I decided to help with you search: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/

I can tell you why that is. Because when the folks of a town in New Jersey faced the town taking their homes, few very few people from around the country came to their defense. When they lost WE all lost.

Think about this for a minute. You own some lake front property with lets say 500 foot of water front and five acres. Your family owns a small cabin. A contractor says if the town takes your property and gives it to him He'll build 200 condos and bring in significant tax revenue. Guess what? They can do it!!

When it comes to "OUR" rights you better think about fighting for them or "we" will lose them just like we did our property rights.

Oh and if you want to read about the CT case where the town took property of private citizens so Phizer could build a research facility then click this!!! http://www.governing.com/columns/eco-engines/Eminent-Domain-Outrage-in.html

ToW

[wifi]

Good point TOW.


What I am having trouble with (probably due to lack of understanding) is why public "servants" are given an exception in responsibility if they do wrong,
such as the town picking up all the legal fees. Maybe if they took some personal responsibility for their actions, power trips would have some consequences for all involved, and it would be a better place to live...

[Rusty]

Believe it or not I’m OK with fighting for my rights and helping other people with theirs as long as we stay within the law of the land, educate ourselves about the violation, and methodically take action.

In the case of Mr. Clay it might have been better for him to have gone through some of those methods to get any government official removed from office.

He used his way and I guess there are a lot of people who agree with his method, I just don’t agree with it. I know what to do and where to go to get a petition started to remove someone from office. It takes more work to do it but I guess using my 1st amendment rights by just saying resign, resign, resign is OK because I have that right.

Fair enough..have a good day.

[MAXUM]

This is going to backfire on the town of Alton if they opt to push this through the court system. The town residents have a right to address the board so long as their "rules" are followed which in this case it's pretty obvious the gentleman did. Now as for the content of his remarks, we need to be very careful here because as it has been pointed out before dessention is a part of every debate or discussion. The citizens must be given the chance to voice thier opinions whatever they may be so long as it is done in a civilized and respectful manner. Now is there merit to what this guy was saying? Who knows and that really who cares. He doesn't like what he sees for whatever reason and has stated that he feels the board is not doing thier job and therefore should resign. That is hardly defamitory it is an opinion. Heck after reading a bunch of the comments on this thread some of you could easliy be accused of defaming and being derrogatory torwards Mr. Clay if the same measuring stick is used by the board. Heck how can a democracy even function if the citizens are not able to speak thier mind? Let's not forget these officals work FOR the people - they are not anoited, they are not royality, they make the choice to serve the public and if that means having to sit through a little criticizm well so be it.

As for Mr. Clay, while I admire his willingness to stand up a say something he looses a whole lot a credibility by pushing the issue the way he did to the point of making a nuscense of himself and ultimately being arrested.

There is ample blame on both sides of the issue here.

[Denny Crane]

A guy like this doesn't deserve a conversation of over 80 posts. He won. He got his 15 minutes of fame. Public meetings are to discuss agendas and address concerns, not to waste time. He should run for office then, but he'd be lucky to get 10 votes.
DC

[8gv]

Ya but...

Some people like to watch football. Others watch public discourse. A bit of spectator sport I think.

[Rusty]

Since arrest at Town Hall, Clay says Alton selectmen are intimidating him

Published Date Thursday, 05 March 2015 01:33


CHICHESTER — The Alton man who was arrested in early February for telling the Alton selectmen they should resign went on the record earlier his week about his opinion about what happened to him.

Jeffrey Clay, who has retained the Sisti Law Group to represent him and was interviewed in the firm's Chichester office on Monday, said that in his mind, Alton selectmen and Police Chief Ryan Heath "used my arrest as a way to silence me."

"They didn't want me to use my free speech to say something's wrong and I want it corrected," he said.

Clay was charged with disorderly conduct after telling selectmen, during the meeting's public comment period, that they were corrupt and should resign their positions.

During the episode, Chair Loring Carr banged his gavel to silence Clay while Selectman David Hussey left the table, exited the room and returned with Heath.

Heath led him from the room by holding one of Clay's arms behind his back and turned him over to a second officer who was outside the building. Clay was charged with two counts of misdemeanor disorderly conduct – one each for a separate clause within the disorderly conduct law.

Clay said during their brief encounter and after Heath told him to leave, he said to him that he didn't do anything and Heath replied that Clay "thinks everybody is wrong except for him."

Clay said his primary complaint about the board was their lack of transparency. He said the board had been meeting in "planning sessions" during odd times of the day with no agendas or minutes and had recently decided not to continue broadcasting their regularly scheduled meetings with Lakes Region Public Access.

He said the board has been having "illegal meetings" and deliberately "circumventing" the right to know laws.

He also said the board arbitrarily goes into non-public session, including one session where they apparently discussed him without giving him the opportunity to request the meeting be held in public, which is his right under the N.H. Right to Know Law.
Three days after his arrest, he went to the police station to get a copy of the police complaints and told the dispatcher he was recording her.

She told him he needed to turn off his cell phone because she didn't agree to be taped and threatened to have him arrested in a public building.

He said just prior to his encounter with the dispatcher, he had parked his car in an area that said "municipal parking." He said he interpreted that as a place he could park his car while on municipal business but the K-9 officer told him he couldn't park there. Clay said the officer's dog was off leash and approached him.

"All I saw was German Shepard," he said when asked which dog came to him.

He said he took a photograph of the lined up police cars and Heath told him he was trespassing.

"It's one photograph," he said.

He described his life since his arrest and subsequent encounter with the police.

"It's upsetting," he said, noting that he is a retired 20-year veteran of the U.S. Air Force who spent seven years as a military police officer.

He's married with two children, four grandchildren and his mother, who lives in Dover, is upset by all the publicity surrounding him and his arrest.

Clay taught high school and finished all of his credits but one toward his CAGS, the specific training an education needs to be a school superintendent. He was fired from the Newmarket School District some years ago where he was a teacher and athletic coach.

"It's upsetting," he repeated, saying when he went to the Alton Central School office to get a copy of Superintendent William "Bill" Lander's employment contract "one of the biggest police officers I've ever seen was standing there."

He said he learned that a school district employee had called the police because she was afraid of him.

"That's sending out a message that I am a problem," he said.

The sad thing, said Clay, is that the tactics used by the selectmen and police have worked because he is not going to town meetings.

"My wife doesn't want me to go because I'm on bail," he said.

Attorney Mark Sisti said he and Clay are hopeful that the criminal case can be resolved without litigation.

"Alton should step back and learn the rules," Sisti said. "We were shocked when we heard about it."

"In a sense, they've won by absolutely silencing me," Clay said.

http://www.laconiadailysun.com/index.php/newsx/local-news/84413-altom-man-arrested-at-selectman-s-meeting-speaks-about-his-life-since-arrest

[Rusty]

The article says: "Attorney Mark Sisti said he and Clay are hopeful that the criminal case can be resolved without litigation."

I know one way they could solve this issue from going to litigation and that is to have Clay apologize to the BoS and to the town of Alton for his conduct at that meeting.

If Clay feels that the board doesn't understand or follow the policy and procedures manual as well as some of the RSA's, then how about maybe educating them in a calm and peaceful manner. Evidently Clay has studied all of these laws/rules/regs and he feels they don't follow or understand them. Maybe he could set-up a class for them...he is/was a teacher.

[DEJ]

I know one way they could solve this issue from going to litigation and that is to have Clay apologize to the BoS and to the town of Alton for his conduct at that meeting.

Another more appropriate way IMO would be to have the BOS apologize to Mr. Clay and to the residents of Alton for their conduct towards Mr. Clay.

[upthesaukee]

I believe the Town is having a holiday in a few weeks, and maybe all those Alton Citizens involved (BOS and Mr Clay) can settle things up on April Fools' Day. :rolleye1:

Both sides behaving badly, unfortunately.

[Seaplane Pilot]

The article says: "Attorney Mark Sisti said he and Clay are hopeful that the criminal case can be resolved without litigation."

I know one way they could solve this issue from going to litigation and that is to have Clay apologize to the BoS and to the town of Alton for his conduct at that meeting.

If Clay feels that the board doesn't understand or follow the policy and procedures manual as well as some of the RSA's, then how about maybe educating them in a calm and peaceful manner. Evidently Clay has studied all of these laws/rules/regs and he feels they don't follow or understand them. Maybe he could set-up a class for them...he is/was a teacher.

You can't be serious. Hopefully the town royalty and palace guards where you live don't turn on you someday. Mr. Clay should be applauded for having the fortitude to stand up to these arrogant, self-serving bozos. I may donate to his defense fund.

[Tired of Waiting]

I know one way they could solve this issue from going to litigation and that is to have Clay apologize to the BoS and to the town of Alton for his conduct at that meeting.



Ya! that's it!! Have the person who's rights were violated apologize to those who violated them. That'll teach them to respect the rights of their constituents!!

ToW

[Rusty]

Removed Video.

[8gv]

At a BoS meeting prior to the one this thread is all about Clay rambled on for over 20 minutes about what he thought they were doing wrong.

After you view this (if you want to), did the board give him enough time to beat them up before he was removed from this meeting? You won't see him being removed because it was cut-out of the video.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/WA8Wt3uRfII?rel=0&amp;showinfo=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did he speak for twenty minutes during a five minute public comment period?

At the time of this video, was there a time limit on public comments?

[Rusty]

Did he speak for twenty minutes during a five minute public comment period?

At the time of this video, was there a time limit on public comments?

At that time there wasn't any time limit...However now because of Clay, the BoS put a 5 min time limit on the rest of us...thank you very much Mr. Clay!!
Also because of Clay, they won't be showing the BoS meeting live anymore. We have to wait a few days to view it and they can cut out some of the video depending on what took place. Thanks again Mr. Clay.

Talk about out rights being taken away from us...thanks Mr. Clay.

[tis]

Mr. Clay didn't take any rights away, Rusty. The Selectmen did.

[8gv]

Whose decision was it to end the live streaming? Are there any rules for editing the video? Is there any legal requirement to video the meetings?

[Tired of Waiting]

At that time there wasn't any time limit...However now because of Clay, the BoS put a 5 min time limit on the rest of us...thank you very much Mr. Clay!!
Also because of Clay, they won't be showing the BoS meeting live anymore. We have to wait a few days to view it and they can cut out some of the video depending on what took place. Thanks again Mr. Clay.

Talk about out rights being taken away from us...thanks Mr. Clay.

you don't like some of your rights being limited. There's a cure for that.

Start a citizen group to remove and replace those who are limiting your rights. That being the BOS, not Mr. Clay.

Mr. Clay may be the burr under the BOS saddle but he's not the one shooting the horse cause it bucked! The BOS is and if you don't want your horse shot take the gun (ability) of the BOS to do it. Remove them.

ToW

[Rusty]

you don't like some of your rights being limited. There's a cure for that.

Start a citizen group to remove and replace those who are limiting your rights. That being the BOS, not Mr. Clay.

Mr. Clay may be the burr under the BOS saddle but he's not the one shooting the horse cause it bucked! The BOS is and if you don't want your horse shot take the gun (ability) of the BOS to do it. Remove them.

ToW

I have no problem with what the Alton BoS did. They were the most patient group of elected public servants that I have ever seen.

[Mr. V]

Probably the best way to get Clay to stop is to have him enter politics, e.g. serve a term as a BOS member or something similar.

I think it might have been Dennis Hopper who said something like: "I used to say 'Stick it to the Man!" But then I BECAME the Man. So now what do I say: "Stick it to myself?"

[RLW]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
At that time there wasn't any time limit...However now because of Clay, the BoS put a 5 min time limit on the rest of us...thank you very much Mr. Clay!!
Also because of Clay, they won't be showing the BoS meeting live anymore. We have to wait a few days to view it and they can cut out some of the video depending on what took place. Thanks again Mr. Clay.

Talk about out rights being taken away from us...thanks Mr. Clay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't Mr. Clay stopping the live video of the meetings it was the BOS who terminated it as they no longer want to be part of the info channel, meaning I do not believe meetings will be shown. They say it was the cost and they weren't getting their monies worth, but one wonders if it was because they didn't want the public to see what was going on. :)

[MGWillia]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
At that time there wasn't any time limit...However now because of Clay, the BoS put a 5 min time limit on the rest of us...thank you very much Mr. Clay!!
Also because of Clay, they won't be showing the BoS meeting live anymore. We have to wait a few days to view it and they can cut out some of the video depending on what took place. Thanks again Mr. Clay.

Talk about out rights being taken away from us...thanks Mr. Clay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't Mr. Clay stopping the live video of the meetings it was the BOS who terminated it as they no longer want to be part of the info channel, meaning I do not believe meetings will be shown. They say it was the cost and they weren't getting their monies worth, but one wonders if it was because they didn't want the public to see what was going on. :)

But back where I come from, part of the price of doing business in a community for cable providers was providing free access for the local governments... Guess we're not in Kansas any more.. (No, I'm not from Kansas)

[Tired of Waiting]

I have no problem with what the Alton BoS did. They were the most patient group of elected public servants that I have ever seen.

Then you have no right to complain that our rights are being taken away. You have no problem with the Government curtailing our rights then stop complaining about it and saying that Mr. Clay caused it. It wasn't Mr. Clay that took the actions on how the meeting would be run or televised it was the BOS.

As I said in past post Mr. Clay might be a "pain in the Butt" and I might not agree with what he says or how he says it but he didn't take any ones rights away or curtail them.

Oh and because the BOS took the unconstitutional actions against Mr. Clay and therefore you and I, I will defend him to the end.

ToW

[Rusty]

Quote:

It wasn't Mr. Clay stopping the live video of the meetings it was the BOS who terminated it as they no longer want to be part of the info channel, meaning I do not believe meetings will be shown. They say it was the cost and they weren't getting their monies worth, but one wonders if it was because they didn't want the public to see what was going on. :)


My mistake, the BoS did stop funding for live streaming from Lakes Region Public Access (LRPA) before the issue with Clay.
Thank you for the correction.

[MDoug]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty View Post
At that time there wasn't any time limit...However now because of Clay, the BoS put a 5 min time limit on the rest of us...thank you very much Mr. Clay!!
Also because of Clay, they won't be showing the BoS meeting live anymore. We have to wait a few days to view it and they can cut out some of the video depending on what took place. Thanks again Mr. Clay.

Talk about out rights being taken away from us...thanks Mr. Clay.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It wasn't Mr. Clay stopping the live video of the meetings it was the BOS who terminated it as they no longer want to be part of the info channel, meaning I do not believe meetings will be shown. They say it was the cost and they weren't getting their monies worth, but one wonders if it was because they didn't want the public to see what was going on. :)

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
Are these words applicable?
Love New Hampshire's respect for individual rights!

[lagoon]

The selectmen didn't have the citizen arrested, they asked the police chief to remove him. The citizen was told by the chief many times to stop talking and leave the room. The citizen refused to leave and kept talking. The chief had no choice but to arrest him. He would not have been arrested if he would have followed the chiefs instructions.

Why do some citizens have to harass public servants with comments like that gentleman made? I know, free speech...but gee whiz. :confused:

The Selectmen were the ones who did not even give him 15 seconds before one of them stood up and declared what was being spoken was defamatory and left to get the police. What a huge, pompous, over reaction.
The Selectmen could have waited 5 minutes, the Chair could have directed that, and his time would have expired, end of story. Instead they caused to elevate it to what I guess will be a law suit and more money to pay Alton's attorney and then pay out yet another settlement. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The citizens of Alton do have the right to both attend, and address, the Selectmen during meetings. I also believe, as do many, that the Selectmen over use, and miss use the option of going in "private session" to conduct public business. The Right to Know Laws are in place for good reason and if allowed to circumvent those rules it seems that is what some Selectmen would prefer.

[lagoon]

This is in part the same story as Mr. Clay being limited in his right to speak to the Alton Selectmen. Now the State may allow charges to be applied to acquire information to those who request that as part of Right to Know, and the legal process. This is very scary and will begin to freeze those who are legitimately using this information. Towns and municipalities will surely use this as a tool to further squelch the public's right to know.

Right to know could get costly
By PAUL FEELY
New Hampshire Union Leader
A bill allowing government officials to charge the public for time spent responding to right-to-know requests received an "Ought to Pass" recommendation from legislators last week, despite strong opposition from civil advocates, local officials and media members.

House Bill 646 would charge anyone making a right-to-know request an upfront fee - in theory covering the cost of retrieving and preparing the records - before they are turned over. It also allows cities and towns to charge for employee labor after the first hour of work associated with a right-to-know request.

The bill has generated strong opposition from open government advocates and members of the media, but even some municipal officials have spoken out against it. Its major backers include lobbying groups representing cities, towns and school boards. Manchester Alderman and Rep. Pat Long, D-Manchester, the bill's prime sponsor, told members of the House Judiciary Committee right-to-know requests are becoming more broad in scope.

"There is a substantial cost to taxpayers to implement these requests," Long told the House Judiciary Committee.

Support for the bill

The New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) and the NH School Boards Association support the bill, saying it will force parties to think before making right-to-know requests requiring a lot of time to answer.

"We don't want to discourage people from making legitimate records requests, even those that will take a lot of time," said NHMA Executive Director Judy Silva. "This would dissuade those people who might use records requests to harass officials with voluminous requests. We do hear about those situations."

Cordell Johnston, NHMA's Government Affairs Counsel, said his group has heard from local officials who report receiving right-to-know requests that generate thousands of pages of documents, requiring hours of staff time to fulfill, only to have the requester fail to claim any of the paperwork.

"The question is often raised is there a way to distinguish the legitimate document requests from the frivolous ones," said Johnston. "The answer is there's no way to make that distinction. The idea is to avoid discouraging anyone from requesting these documents, while recognizing there is a cost associated with the process of fulfilling those requests. We feel this bill strikes that balance."

Opposition to the bill

But several groups, including the New Hampshire Press Association, Coalition of New Hampshire Taxpayers, American Civil Liberties Union, and some members of the NHMA, are against the bill.

"This is the most shameless attempt by Concord lobbyists to hide government waste and corruption from the public we've seen in years," said Trent Spiner, Executive Editor of the New Hampshire Union Leader and president of the New Hampshire Press Association.

Durham Town Administrator Todd Selig said providing documents to the public is a critical part of good governance.

"If you start with the premise that we in government are undertaking the people's business and that public records belong to them, then it's easy to see that providing helping to provide them with access to those records is part of the job, just like putting out fires or paving roads," Selig said. "They shouldn't have to pay for what's already theirs. It's part of the cost of doing business on behalf of the people."

"This is a bad bill," said former state Rep. Harriet Cady, a member of Right-to-Know New Hampshire. "It's a bad bill because it might be enough to prevent someone from keeping an eye on elected officials. Not everyone has the money to spend on being a watchdog. I can't impress on you how opposed I am to this. The cost is enough to scare some people away from making a right-to-know request."

Should be available

Spiner said towns and cities should be using technology to make documents available at less cost for everyone involved.

"Rather than trying to hide information from the public, the municipal association should be showing its members how to use the Internet and technology to be more responsive to the public," said Spiner.

Last week one of the bill's co-sponsors, Rep. David Hess, R-Hooksett, made an amendment to the bill allowing officials to charge at the minimum wage hourly rate for time spent on right-to-know requests, with the first hour spent on the request free of charge.

Last Thursday, an additional amendment was made to the bill, adding the line, "No charge shall be imposed for allowing a person to inspect a record that is immediately available."

The bill, as amended, was voted out of the House Judiciary Committee on a 14-4 vote with a recommendation of 'Ought to Pass.'

"I can see why it passed, because I think the members of the committee feel so pressured by officials to relieve them from the so-called 'burden' or right to know requests," said Selig. "But what if the record isn't immediately available? There never was a charge for looking at records standing at the counter. Under that language, residents could be charged for access to records they used to access for free."

"This legislation rewards cities and towns for sloppy recordkeeping, rather than encouraging them to develop systems more open and accessible to the public," said Spiner.

"If this passes, there would be no safeguard against a municipality throwing all of their unsorted records in a box because they'd know you'd have to come up with thousands of dollars upfront to look inside. It eliminates any impetus for cities or towns to keep records in an easily accessible manner."

Serves as incentive

"While compliance with 91-A carries a cost to public bodies, these costs serve as an incentive to streamline records management to control costs," wrote Rep. Michael Sylvia, R-Belmont, in the minority report on the bill. "In the balance, we have a constitutional duty to maintain transparency in government; this bill would be a step in the wrong direction."

"This bill threads the needle between an individual's right to free and full access to public records and the taxpayer's right to be free from bearing the substantial costs of unreasonable or abusive document retrievals," writes Rep. David Woodbury, D-New Boston, in the bill's majority report.

HB 646 also contains language that government officials can waive any charges for individuals who demonstrate an inability to pay.

"That language itself can create a disincentive to request records," said Selig. "People in New Hampshire are proud. They shouldn't have to demonstrate an inability to pay for records that are theirs in the first place."

HB 646 is scheduled to go before the full House for a vote this Wednesday.

[email protected]

- See more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/20150308/NEWS0621/150309210#sthash.QJHlxt26.dpuf

[Rusty]

The Selectmen were the ones who did not even give him 15 seconds before one of them stood up and declared what was being spoken was defamatory and left to get the police. What a huge, pompous, over reaction.
The Selectmen could have waited 5 minutes, the Chair could have directed that, and his time would have expired, end of story. Instead they caused to elevate it to what I guess will be a law suit and more money to pay Alton's attorney and then pay out yet another settlement. Not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
The citizens of Alton do have the right to both attend, and address, the Selectmen during meetings. I also believe, as do many, that the Selectmen over use, and miss use the option of going in "private session" to conduct public business. The Right to Know Laws are in place for good reason and if allowed to circumvent those rules it seems that is what some Selectmen would prefer.

Clay talked for 45 seconds and made statements which I assume one selectman thought was character assassination and left the room. When he left the room the video does not show what he did so we can't assume that he called the chief or anyone else. From what I can get out of the video the chief was already in the room from the start of the meeting.

Below is what I get out of the video that Clay said that the selectmen thought were defamatory statements:

1. Poor decisions and actions for selectmen and resign.
2. Continued violations of citizens rights and resign.

Between the remarks Clay made about the selectmen he kept saying for selectmen to step-up and resign.

Then 1 minute and 35 sec’s into Clay’s presentation the chair made a motion to shut down public discussion because of defamatory statements made by Clay.
Clay continued to talk and the chair gave him 3 warnings to stop. When Clay didn’t stop, the chair asked the chief to remove him. Clay refused to move after the chief asked him many times, so he was then escorted out of the room and arrested.

Now the court/s will have to decide whether “poor decisions” and "violations of citizens rights” is defamatory and whether the chief was wrong in arresting him.

[Rusty]

[I][B]
A bill allowing government officials to charge the public for time spent responding to right-to-know requests received an "Ought to Pass" recommendation from legislators last week, despite strong opposition from civil advocates, local officials and media members.

House Bill 646 would charge anyone making a right-to-know request an upfront fee - in theory covering the cost of retrieving and preparing the records - before they are turned over. It also allows cities and towns to charge for employee labor after the first hour of work associated with a right-to-know request.



Just to make it a little clearer as to what the Bill wants to Amend in RSA 91-A:4, IV , here is what it says:

"If the time required to retrieve the requested records is estimated to exceed one hour, the public body or agency may charge for the cost of labor after the first hour, at a rate not exceeding the applicable minimum wage, and may require payment of the estimated cost before retrieving the records. No charge shall be made for the cost of searching for or retrieving minutes of any public body meeting that occurred less than one year before the date of the request. Any labor charges may be waived for any individual who demonstrates an inability to pay."
https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB646/2015

[lagoon]

Just to make it a little clearer as to what the Bill wants to Amend in RSA 91-A:4, IV , here is what it says:

"If the time required to retrieve the requested records is estimated to exceed one hour, the public body or agency may charge for the cost of labor after the first hour, at a rate not exceeding the applicable minimum wage, and may require payment of the estimated cost before retrieving the records. No charge shall be made for the cost of searching for or retrieving minutes of any public body meeting that occurred less than one year before the date of the request. Any labor charges may be waived for any individual who demonstrates an inability to pay."
https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB646/2015

Rusty is correct but lets consider this; if a citizen decided to sue a municipality over any issue or the municipality was named as a party to a law suit they could easily create a situation where they charge that party so much they can't proceed with their due diligence and use that as a weapon, (which they already do by delay and costs to petitioners.) This is a dangerous and slippery slope that has the effect of creating just the opposite of "the right to know law".

[wifi]

Its just another example of a state with no sales or income taxes that is trying to balance the budget, IMHO. I don't believe this is the right way to do it for all the reasons stated in this thread.

I also don't believe we need more taxes to supplement growing government bloat. Sort of a rock and a hard place, perhaps they should find some other project to cut back on....

[upthesaukee]

Just to make it a little clearer as to what the Bill wants to Amend in RSA 91-A:4, IV , here is what it says:

"If the time required to retrieve the requested records is estimated to exceed one hour, the public body or agency may charge for the cost of labor after the first hour, at a rate not exceeding the applicable minimum wage, and may require payment of the estimated cost before retrieving the records. No charge shall be made for the cost of searching for or retrieving minutes of any public body meeting that occurred less than one year before the date of the request. Any labor charges may be waived for any individual who demonstrates an inability to pay."
https://legiscan.com/NH/text/HB646/2015

In the medical field, if a patient wants to have a copy of their medical file (the file belongs to the medical practice, not the patient), the practice can charge a reasonable rate to cover the cost of copying the records. The cost involves the time for someone to physically disassemble the file folder, and then copy each individual page, plus the actual cost of the machine use and supplies. The cost usually breaks down to a few cents per page (maybe 10 cents). This cost is normally waived if the patient is transferring coverage to a new doctor / facility, and that request comes from the new provider. Today, with electronic medical records, this request can normally be accomplished much cheaper and easier due to just printing out the record from the electronic file.

The tie to medical vs RTK law is that when an individual wants the copy of their medical records, it usually involves a lawsuit, and it is usually the patient's lawyer who makes the request with a patient release to obtain the records. The cost of the copying becomes part of the lawyer's fee, which oftentimes is recouped if the lawsuit is successful. The copying of material for a RTK request is often the precursor to litigation, and involves a lawyer.

Personally, I see no problem for RTK requests to be paid for with a reasonable small cost per request.

JMHO.

[lagoon]

The trick word is "reasonable". They already can charge a fee to copy any materials you request in a law suit, at least that is my experience. The fee is substantial, .25 per page and the cost of the employees time. In many small towns the records are in such a bad state of affairs it can take weeks or months to find materials if they ever do.

No one that is sensible brings a frivolous law suit for many reasons. The fact that you can be charged what is currently a "reasonable fee" is a huge uncharted area by any definition and is a very effective weapon used by town attorneys to thwart suits. The documents to thoroughly research any suit can be into hundreds if not thousands of pages, scary and expensive.

[Rusty]

ACLU joins defense of man arrested at Alton meeting

By Gail Ober
THE LACONIA DAILY SUN

ALTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire is joining the battle against this town and its Police department for having Jeffrey Clay arrested for two counts of disorderly conduct at a February 3 selectman’s meeting.

In a letter sent to Alton Town Prosecutor Anthony Estee, ACLU Attorney and Legal Director Gilles Bissonnette said Clay’s First Amendment right to free speech as well as his right to the same under the N.H. Constitution Article Part I, Article 22 was violated.

Clay is also being represented by Chichester attorney Mark Sisti and his associate Jared Bedrick.

The first charge against him is one count of disorderly conduct for refusing to comply with a lawful order given by Chief Ryan Heath to move from a public place — Alton Town Hall.

The second charge is disorderly conduct for purposing causing a breach of the peace by disrupting an Alton Board of Selectmen meeting by continuing to speak after being informed repetitively by the board that public input was closed.

ACLU joins defense of man arrested at Alton meeting Video tape of meeting shows Clay sitting at the table during the public comment section of the meeting and using a timer to ensure he didn’t go over his five-minute allotted time to speak.

He told the selectmen they should resign for their “poor actions as selectmen” “poor decisions” and “continued violations of the citizens’ rights here in Alton.”

Heath arrested clay about four minutes into his prepared statement.

Bissonnette claims that his arrest not only violated both the U.S. and the N.H. Constitution but that the town engaged in “content-base and viewpoint discrimination” in suppressing Clay’s protected political speech. He also said the town violated it own policies by having him taken from the room and arrested.

Bissonnette also said Clay’s speech was not disruptive because his speech didn’t prevent selectmen from continuing with their meeting.

He urged Estee to review the precedents he outlined in his argument and dismiss all of the charges against Clay. He gave Estee until Monday to provide
Clay’s legal team an answer.

[Tired of Waiting]

ACLU joins defense of man arrested at Alton meeting

By Gail Ober
THE LACONIA DAILY SUN

ALTON — The American Civil Liberties Union of New Hampshire is joining the battle against this town and its Police department for having Jeffrey Clay arrested for two counts of disorderly conduct at a February 3 selectman’s meeting.

ACLU joins defense of man arrested at Alton meeting Video tape of meeting shows Clay sitting at the table during the public comment section of the meeting and using a timer to ensure he didn’t go over his five-minute allotted time to speak.

.

Well Rusty,

Looks like it's going to be fun to watch to see how this turns out and if the BOS acted in a reasonable and lawful way. If they only had not messes around with a citizens rights this would not be an issue.


ToW

[8gv]

All this turmoil and expense

VS

Listening to an annoying citezen for five minutes

A bad choice was made. Too bad for the taxpayers.

[Mr. V]

I am pretty sure that the criminal charge will be dismissed: it would likely be "legal suicide" to not do so.

Which leaves the real issue: a civil lawsuit seeking financial damages for false arrest.

It might be best for those involved to fall on their sword and resign.

[MGWillia]

Well, I guess it's a good thing that we have that line item in the budget for legal representation....

[ITD]

I am pretty sure that the criminal charge will be dismissed: it would likely be "legal suicide" to not do so.

Which leaves the real issue: a civil lawsuit seeking financial damages for false arrest.

It might be best for those involved to fall on their sword and resign.

I'm not sure about fall on their sword and resign, but an apology would probably go a long way and certainly be appropriate........

[LIforrelaxin]

All this turmoil and expense

VS

Listening to an annoying citezen for five minutes

A bad choice was made. Too bad for the taxpayers.

Disagree.....

For the first time Rusty and I seem to agree on this, which is new, because I almost never agree with Rusty.... nothing personal, we just seem to view things differently most times....

1. I believe there is more to this story then has been published in the press... lets seem some information flow from the BOS before we condemn them for being wrong here.

2. We have accounts that this 5 min limit is a direct result of Mr. Clay's actions in early meetings...

3. The police chief, requested that Mr. Clay step down.. several times in fact... if Mr. Clay gets away with disobeying a law officer at a BOS meeting, then guess what, why does anyone have to listen to police officers if they feel they are just exercising their right to free speach....

At the end of the day Mr. Clay, could have handled things differently himself. So could of the BOS.... The problem in this country is that we file to many law suits... Why??? SO THE DAM LAWYERS CAN MAKE MONEY

I would be behind Mr. Clay in an instant if he had just listened to the Police Chief.... I agree the BOS jumped the gun... and that would have been a lawsuit I could have gotten behind... but suing the police dept... I can't and will not get behind that... because the only ones that will win are the lawyers, who probably don't given a darn about Mr. Clay... the just see the potential money making lawsuit....

[thinkxingu]

I want to hear more about what Clay had previously done regarding personal attacks on one of the BOS members' families. It was alluded to in only one of the newspaper articles.

[8gv]

Disagree.....

For the first time Rusty and I seem to agree on this, which is new, because I almost never agree with Rusty.... nothing personal, we just seem to view things differently most times....

1. I believe there is more to this story then has been published in the press... lets seem some information flow from the BOS before we condemn them for being wrong here.

2. We have accounts that this 5 min limit is a direct result of Mr. Clay's actions in early meetings...

3. The police chief, requested that Mr. Clay step down.. several times in fact... if Mr. Clay gets away with disobeying a law officer at a BOS meeting, then guess what, why does anyone have to listen to police officers if they feel they are just exercising their right to free speach....

At the end of the day Mr. Clay, could have handled things differently himself. So could of the BOS.... The problem in this country is that we file to many law suits... Why??? SO THE DAM LAWYERS CAN MAKE MONEY

I would be behind Mr. Clay in an instant if he had just listened to the Police Chief.... I agree the BOS jumped the gun... and that would have been a lawsuit I could have gotten behind... but suing the police dept... I can't and will not get behind that... because the only ones that will win are the lawyers, who probably don't given a darn about Mr. Clay... the just see the potential money making lawsuit....


I can't find fault in any of your points.

I do believe that the BOS could have just waited for five minutes. At the end of the five minutes, there is no gray area, no debate over the type of comments made, time's up. After that, continued intereference in the meeting could bring a legal ejection and possible arrest if there is no compliance with LEO demands.

[wifi]

Cross referencing this to the Belknap Commissioners thread, If the chief had the....errr.. "intestinal fortitude" to say what the deputy said in the county meeting this would be a non issue.

[TheProfessor]

Well, I read all of the comments and viewed the video.

Some are in support of the selectmen and some are more geared toward free speech.

Woven through the comments is the perception of a "nut". In a context of someone with some sort of mental illness or on the fringes of such.

But does someone who may or may not have a medical diagnosis of mental illness still have the right to speak?

From what I have viewed, this guy brought in a timer. The citizen in question was prepared to speak for 5 minutes. He was timing himself.

So from what I have read and viewed - why not just let him rant for 5 minutes? If done peaceably.

After that, then if he doesn't stop - call in the police.

My take is that the selectmen jumped too early on this one. And that take away all of the emotions of the moment - and enter the court room - what will a judge say?

So far, from what I have read and viewed, if this guy does continue to remain rational - he will win. But it is a greater question if this guy does remain rational.

Irrational people tend to remain irrational. To their down fall.

Time will tell.

[Lakegeezer]

While I agree with all who say the citizen deserved his five minutes, he still has a problem stemming from his choice to ignore instructions from a police officer. The video makes it clear he was refusing to obey the request to leave. He was told he would be arrested if he did not leave and he chose that route. Either way (arrested or leave on request), he has a case against the select board, but risks charges of disobeying a police officer. That might end up being a bargaining chip for both parties to drop the whole thing, go into their corners for a five minute time out and start over. Both sides acted foolishly.

[Rusty]

Mr. Clay is going full force against the Alton School board, I guess he wants to shut down more than just the Board of Selectmen.

This article is in todays edition of the Baysider:

The Alton School Board is a spineless public body; a body without integrity; and as a consequence, has rendered itself quite irrelevant and useless. The board has clearly abdicated its lawful authority to school district administrators and to the special interest teacher's union.

The biggest losers as a result of this abdication is of course the public, those who elected the board to exercise its lawful duties and represent the community with honesty and integrity. The events occurring over the past year in the dis*trict stand as a testament justifying my harsh criticism of the board.

On Jan. 31, the school board entered non-public session for just 10 minutes. However, what took place during those 10 minutes, I contend, was unethical and illegal and cannot be swept under the rug because some in the public want to protect the town's reputation, or because those involved “had good intentions.”

Without any prior public or non-public meeting discussions having taken place and without any documents in hand for review, the board entered into negotiations during those 10 minutes with YET Consulting, an LLC apparently created and owned by current superintendent of schools, Mr. William Lander. During this brief 10-minute meeting, the board also voted to obligate $125,000 of taxpayers’ money for the services of YET Consulting beginning on July 1.

Intensifying the odor of malfeasance and unethical behavior surrounding this debacle, is the recent revelations that several of the members of the board had met privately, individually, with superintendent Lander/YET Consulting outside of any public or non-public meetings for the purpose of discuss*ing and deliberating the matter of hiring YET.

As outrageous as the actions of the board and superintendent have been regarding all of the above, the most outrageous aspect of this entire episode would follow their having been caught.

Despite repeated calls for an independent in*vestigation into what appears to have been unethical and illegal behavior, the board and superintendent have refused to take any action in this regard.

The good people of Alton should not have to call for an independent investigation. The publicly elected and appointed officials should have already done so, so as to assure the public that no wrongdoing had taken place. Why? Because its the right thing to do and is necessary in order for this community to move forward. This is called having integrity. The people must have faith in the system.

The second biggest failure of the board during the past year involved manner in which Linda Wilman became the associate principal of Alton Central School. The entire process appears to have been a shameful deception and fraud.

An advertisement to fill the vacancy of departing principal Leggett asked for applicants who were certified principals with administrative experience. It is reported 22 applicants fitting this bill submitted their applications for the position. Yet, the school board never reviewed or interviewed any of the applications or applicants.

However, we have been informed that a “principal search committee” did review applications and conducted interviews, but, that they could not find a candidate who “was the right fit.” And, that not having found a suitable fit, the committee, without school board involvement, went to superintendent Lander with their dilemma. Enter Mrs. Wilman.

First, it is important to note that I have not been able to find any record of the Alton School Board ever nominating or appointing anyone to a principal search committee. Moreover, I have not been able to find any public or non-public meeting minutes of any meetings of any principal search committee. Consequently, it is impossible to know who served on the committee, or when they ever met, or if they ever inter*viewed anyone.

In the past I have asked pertinent questions regarding how Mrs. Wilman became the associate principal, such as: did she ever actually apply for the job? Did the school board or search committee ever interview her? Why, if she was not certified and had no experience, was she chosen above 22 other applicants who were? The board has yet to an*swer these questions, choosing silence instead of transparency.

The school board meeting of March 2 helped shed light, at least for me, on what actually took place regarding the hiring of Mrs. Wilman, and what is now being seen by many as her inevitable ascension to becoming the new principal of Alton Central School.

A small group of individuals, consisting predominantly of teacher union members, unilaerally dismissed all of the qualified applicants and sought to have one of their own, Mrs. Wilman, appointed. This of course, at least in part, explains all of the accolades bestowed upon Mrs. Wilman during a recent school board meeting whereby members of the teachers union extolled her excellence as a principal and other virtues to the point of believing her the seconded coming. All of this despite the fact she is still not a certified principal and has only been an associate principal for approximately eight months.

It is easy for me to conclude, based upon the facts, that the teachers’ union unilaterally sought out and advocate for one of their fellow educators to become the next principal. Someone perhaps, whom they believed, would be easy on them. Someone who, because of their close ties, would never hold them accountable. These are justifiable assumptions given the facts.

In closing, the Alton School Board has irrevocably lost my confidence, faith and trust to effectively lead the Alton School District. I find them all to be without integrity. Because when it came time to stand tall and admit their mistakes and take responsibility for their actions, there response was silence.

A complete and independent investigation is justified. Let the chips fall where they may. Guilt or innocence, the public has a right to know.

As for who the next principal will be, I don't much care. All I care about is integrity in the process.

[Tired of Waiting]

Mr. Clay is going full force against the Alton School board, I guess he wants to shut down more than just the Board of Selectmen.

This article is in todays edition of the Baysider:

The Alton School Board is a spineless public body; a body without integrity; and as a consequence, has rendered itself quite irrelevant and useless. The board has clearly abdicated its lawful authority to school district administrators and to the special interest teacher's union.
(snip)


Wow again,

If what he wrote is true, yet to be seen, then he might have a point.

Small town politics can be very questionable at times. We have had the same problems here in my home town. However the difference is there are enough watch dogs to keep it to a dull roar. The last town employee to bite the dust was our fire chief.

He went bye-bye when he was fired for wrongfully hiring his son to do contractor work which never was done but was paid for. And back when we had the October snow storm nocking power out for a week he took the backup generator from the FD and powered his home with it on the towns dime.

The watch dogs barked and he was bit in the,,, well you know where.

ToW

[Little Bear]

Mr. Clay is not a stupid man. This case stinks to high Heaven!

Interestingly enough, there's a similar case down here in Collier County, Florida:

http://www.nbc-2.com/story/28086694/parent-files-federal-lawsuit-against-collier-co-school-district#.VQGSdmc5Akl

[PaugusBayFireFighter]

I hope Mr Clay's injuries from the arrest are healing.

[Mr. V]

Wow.

The people of Alton need to assemble with pitchforks and firebrands.

[Crusty]

The people of Alton need to assemble with pitchforks and firebrands.

Will anyone volunteer to file for the necessary permits?

[Bear Islander]

While I agree with all who say the citizen deserved his five minutes, he still has a problem stemming from his choice to ignore instructions from a police officer. The video makes it clear he was refusing to obey the request to leave. He was told he would be arrested if he did not leave and he chose that route. Either way (arrested or leave on request), he has a case against the select board, but risks charges of disobeying a police officer. That might end up being a bargaining chip for both parties to drop the whole thing, go into their corners for a five minute time out and start over. Both sides acted foolishly.

Several people have posted mentioning that Mr. Clay failed to obey the orders of a police officer. There is no law I am aware of that requires you to obey every order from a police officer. And if you think about it that would be the definition of a Police State, and none of us want that.

Obviously there are circumstances where the law requires you to obey police orders but I'm not convinced any of them apply to Mr. Clay. It may be possible he was trespassing because the board did suspend his time to speak and he was ordered from the room.

[Skip]

Several people have posted mentioning that Mr. Clay failed to obey the orders of a police officer. There is no law I am aware of that requires you to obey every order from a police officer. And if you think about it that would be the definition of a Police State, and none of us want that.

Obviously there are circumstances where the law requires you to obey police orders but I'm not convinced any of them apply to Mr. Clay. It may be possible he was trespassing because the board did suspend his time to speak and he was ordered from the room.

Very good point BI. The order must be a "lawful" order. If it is determined that the Selectmen violated Clay's right to free speech, then any subsequent action to silence and remove (arrest) him can also be determined to be unlawful. In legal parlance it is sometimes referred to as the "fruits of the poisonous tree" defense.

It will be very interesting to see who prevails in this issue! :)

[Rusty]

According to a statement made in a News Article (http://benswann.com/man-arrested-at-nh-selectboard-meeting-after-calling-for-members-resignation/)by Alton Police Chief Ryan Heath, Mr. Clay is being charged with the below section of the criminal code:

TITLE LXII
CRIMINAL CODE
CHAPTER 644 BREACHES OF THE PEACE AND RELATED OFFENSES
Section 644:2 III. (b) Disrupting the orderly conduct of business in any public or governmental facility.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/lxii/644/644-mrg.htm

[tis]

I didn't see his speaking as disrupting the meeting. The selectmen seemed to be the ones who disrupted the meeting when they didn't want to give him his 5 minutes- even if it was a rant.

[Rusty]

I didn't see his speaking as disrupting the meeting. The selectmen seemed to be the ones who disrupted the meeting when they didn't want to give him his 5 minutes- even if it was a rant.

It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.

[Charlie T]

It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

[Rusty]

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!! His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.

[Charlie T]

By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true.

His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.

He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
By virtue of the fact that the BOS acknowledged him and granted him his 5 min to speak, nothing that Mr. Clay did was out of order!!
That’s true also.


His presence and the action of speaking were allowed by the BOS and therefore must be considered "lawful" .
That’s true also.


He committed no "breach of the peace" because of those actions.
You’re right again, there was no unlawful “breach of peace” with his rant.

and I think the BOS and the Alton PD will have a hard time justifying both the arrest and the decision to call the police and ask for his removal or arrest based upon Mr. Clay's actions that evening prior to his arrest.

I disagree with that statement. The Alton BOS have all the right in the world to get the police to remove someone who is disrupting there meeting. Therefore when the police chief asked Clay multiple times to leave and he refused, than the chief had no other option but to arrest him.
Whether you believe that Clay’s rant was against the Alton policy has nothing to do with his arrest. Clay didn’t get arrested because of his 2 minute rant, he got arrested after the board voted to shut down public input and continued to talk and disobey the police.

The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

[Mr. V]

The BOS and other pols need to wise up and do what a smart wife does to placate and shut up her husband: "You just yes him to death then do as you please."

[Rusty]

The problem I have with your argument Rusty is that Mr. Clay was granted 5 minutes and the BOS, after granting that decided to take it away because they didn't like and/ or agree with what he was saying or ranting. As someone else said this isn't a "police state". If the BOS had let him go on for the 5 minutes and then shut it down all would be fine. They didn't, and in my opinion they violated his rights and broke their own rules. The rules can't and shouldn't change depending on who they are being applied to. Isn't that what the entire Civil Rights movement in the United States was all about? The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.
However the second issue where the police got involved is separate from the BOS not allowing Clay to complete his allowed 5 minutes. Clay probably should have been allowed to finish beating up the selectmen but that will have to be worked out separate from the arrest.
Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

[wifi]

.....Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

By state law, the BOS cannot command the police department to arrest someone. They can ask, and its up to the police department to evaluate the situation and be solely responsible for their action of arrest. So you are right that the PD will have to defend their actions.

Refer to the Belknap Commissioners meeting, where the deputy spoke up and disagreed that there was any disorder and (legally) refused the orders from the chair. This, IMHO, is what should have happened in Alton. In a non life threatening situation, arresting first and figuring it out later is lame.

[tis]

I agree the police should be able to decide what to do. However, I imagine the Selectmen are the policeman's boss and do the hiring and firing. That puts him in a tough spot.

[Tired of Waiting]

For the record I don't necessarily agree with what Mr. Clay was saying, I'm just defending his, mine and your US Constitution given right to say it.

CT

NO, No, No the constitution does not give you ANY rights. It protects our rights!! You are born with these rights and the constitution was written so the Government couldn't take them away from us.

ToW

[Tired of Waiting]

I don't disagree with you "Charlie T" and the court/s might take that into consideration.

(snip)

Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that.

One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.

For instance: You go down and swear out a complaint against me, cause you don't like me, and the complaint is that I trespassed with a gun on your property. You bring a couple buddies that say the same. (We call you and your buddies the BOS)

The police take the complaint and arrest me for felony trespass.

Later it's found that you filed a false police report and are arrested under perjury.

I sue you and the police for false arrest. Think I'd win only from the police or would you also be held accountable.

This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW

[Rusty]

One illegal action that brings on another illegal action does not absolve anyone.


This I what is going on here with this case.


ToW

As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.

[Tired of Waiting]

As far as I know there hasn't been any determined illegal action by the BoS or the Police Dept.

Never said there was a determined illegal action. I was referring to this statement you made:

"Once the Board Chair turned Clay over to the police chief, the selectmen are (IMO) absolved from what happend after that."

You said in your Humble opinion the BOS is absolved from what happened after they turned the issue over to the police.

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.


ToW

[Mr. V]

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.

Therefore "if", to be determined, the BOS violated his rights then they will not be absolved of the police action they initiated. They will be complicit to the action.

We'll find out soon enough when Clay's lawyer files suit: the heading of the complaint will name the defendants.

Out West where I live we have some real bozos in county positions, whose idiotic actions have literally cost the taxpayers millions of dollars, only some of which is covered by insurance.

A sad state of affairs: JFK called out for "the best and the brightest," and in the end we get the whack jobs.

Ah, politics.

[Rusty]

The police chief acted on the BOS word without stopping to review what was actually going on and inserted himself into the issue by arresting Clay.



ToW

Maybe you didn't know it but the Chief was in the audience when this all took place. This is one of the complaints from Clay that there are police present at the BoS meetings.
The chief witnessed the whole thing and from what I see he had no intention of arresting Clay until he refused to stop talking and either sit in the audience or leave the meeting; Clay had those two options that were given by the board chair.

I've seen where some forum member/s have said that Hussey went for the police, however the fact of the matter is that the police were there all the time.

[lagoon]

I have no problem with what the Alton BoS did. They were the most patient group of elected public servants that I have ever seen.

I would beg to differ. I have found them to be impatient, not knowledgeable and arrogant time after time. There are undoubtedly good members but in general there are a few controlling members who are not willing to listen to concerned citizens and who think they know everything.

[Rusty]

I would beg to differ. I have found them to be impatient, not knowledgeable and arrogant time after time. There are undoubtedly good members but in general there are a few controlling members who are not willing to listen to concerned citizens and who think they know everything.

Three people ran for two selectman positions this year in Alton. One incumbent and two new candidates. The two new candidates won.

Why is that people are so unhappy with local government officials but no one wants to do the job. Also very few people even vote and the majority of them do very little research about who or what they are voting for. IMO we get exactly what we ask for by not taking our voting rights seriously.

Maybe they should do away with elections and have a drawing like they do for jury duty. That way every legal voter of the town gets a chance to run the town for a certain period of time.

It's just to bad that local, state, and federal government officials are looked at as being rotten to core, yet very few people run for office.

[lagoon]

Three people ran for two selectman positions this year in Alton. One incumbent and two new candidates. The two new candidates won.

Why is that people are so unhappy with local government officials but no one wants to do the job. Also very few people even vote and the majority of them do very little research about who or what they are voting for. IMO we get exactly what we ask for by not taking our voting rights seriously.

Maybe they should do away with elections and have a drawing like they do for jury duty. That way every legal voter of the town gets a chance to run the town for a certain period of time.

It's just to bad that local, state, and federal government officials are looked at as being rotten to core, yet very few people run for office.

You are correct I believe more folks should care and get involved. On the good side at least we have two new faces!

[Coolbreeze]

...all on the tax payers tab. They should all be embarrassed and ashamed for their lack of professionalism and lack of concern for the tax dollars this will consume. What a circus.

[tis]

I don't think there are too many selectmen in too many towns that are concerned about the taxpayer's dollars any more.

[Woodsy]

You cannot please everyone.... and when it comes to spending peoples tax money you cannot please anyone!

Its not a job I would want. Serving on a condo board was enough for me!

I think the local politicians do a darn good job of balancing the needs of their respective communities while trying to keep the tax rate as low as possible.

Truly a thankless unenviable position... I wish Washington spent our money with 1/2 of the thought and consideration that our local town government does.

Woodsy

[Rusty]

Another low turnout: why?
OpinionSECTION A, PAGE 12 THE GRANITE STATE NEWS THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015

As we were gathering the vote totals to do our election report last week, we saw the same pattern emerge that we saw in March 2014: the total votes cast was less than the year before. In some cases the winners this year won by total votes that would have made them losers last year.
Add to that the fact that there were very few contested positions, and it would be hard not to see a growing disconnection between town residents and their government.
As we have observed before, this is not a local phenomenon. Nationally the vote last November had the worst turnout in 72 years and on average, our national representatives were elected by just 20 percent of voters.
On the national level one can begin to understand why so many people have lost faith in the democratic process. Congress has approval levels in the single digits, political campaigns are driven by private money interests and cynically focus on demeaning the character of opponents and questioning their motives, and, in the end, we have a national government being weakened by thousands of small cuts and a Congress incapable of passing any legislation, let alone trying to solve any of the obvious problems the nation is facing.
We also have a national media, particularly cable news, that is driven to view every piece of news in a sordid light to make it more dramatic and entertaining. Politicians saying foolish things produce the best ratings.
So there are reasons for a national apathy, even if those reasons are not good ones (in the sense that voting all incumbents out and voting money out of political campaigns would solve the problem), but why do so few voters show up at the polls in local elections?
There is the benign view that local voters are, for the most part, satisfied with how their towns and schools are running and assume that things will continue to hum along without them bothering to vote. The rationale here is that people lead busy lives – many of them working multiple jobs to make ends meet – and free time is so limited that it can’t be spared to pay attention to politics or to vote.
Then there is the less charitable view that people are too self-absorbed to care what is going on in their world outside of their immediate circle of work and family.
We think that while these views are valid, they do not take into account the impact of state and national politics on how people view local government and those involved with it.
Last week we wrote about how in some towns (notably Tuftonboro) some people are actively promoting distrust of local government and disrespecting local elected officials. In the case of Tuftonboro we know that the person in the forefront of the distrust and disrespect movement has more than one personal grudge against the town in general and two of the three selectmen in particular. The puzzle is why others listen to this person and allow his anger and conspiracy theories to drive their actions.
Some of those others were opposed to spending money on building a new Tuftonboro library, and for them the third defeat of that proposal at Town Meeting last week should settle things. The two new members elected to the budget committee will hopefully improve the atmosphere on that board, which has had a particularly testy relationship with selectmen over the past year or so.
In any event, we all need to commit ourselves to positive choices, to persuading the best and brightest among us to run for office and help us govern ourselves fairly and openly. We also need to respect those we elect for their dedication and service.
The simple fact is that local politics is not national politics. No one makes a living running for local office: in most towns the few officials who are paid a stipend make less than the minimum wage. There are few favors to sell and the openness of government makes it very difficult to do so.
The rewards of being an elected official are the pleasures of making sure government is responsive to residents and efficient as possible and earning the respect, trust and gratitude of your fellow townspeople. We can’t let a few unhappy people put those rewards at risk: don’t tolerate disrespect and distrust by your silence. Speak up.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Another low turnout: why?
OpinionSECTION A, PAGE 12 THE GRANITE STATE NEWS THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2015

As we were gathering the vote totals to do our election report last week, we saw the same pattern emerge that we saw in March 2014: the total votes cast was less than the year before. In some cases the winners this year won by total votes that would have made them losers last year.
Add to that the fact that there were very few contested positions, and it would be hard not to see a growing disconnection between town residents and their government.
As we have observed before, this is not a local phenomenon. Nationally the vote last November had the worst turnout in 72 years and on average, our national representatives were elected by just 20 percent of voters.
On the national level one can begin to understand why so many people have lost faith in the democratic process. Congress has approval levels in the single digits, political campaigns are driven by private money interests and cynically focus on demeaning the character of opponents and questioning their motives, and, in the end, we have a national government being weakened by thousands of small cuts and a Congress incapable of passing any legislation, let alone trying to solve any of the obvious problems the nation is facing.
We also have a national media, particularly cable news, that is driven to view every piece of news in a sordid light to make it more dramatic and entertaining. Politicians saying foolish things produce the best ratings.
So there are reasons for a national apathy, even if those reasons are not good ones (in the sense that voting all incumbents out and voting money out of political campaigns would solve the problem), but why do so few voters show up at the polls in local elections?
There is the benign view that local voters are, for the most part, satisfied with how their towns and schools are running and assume that things will continue to hum along without them bothering to vote. The rationale here is that people lead busy lives – many of them working multiple jobs to make ends meet – and free time is so limited that it can’t be spared to pay attention to politics or to vote.
Then there is the less charitable view that people are too self-absorbed to care what is going on in their world outside of their immediate circle of work and family.
We think that while these views are valid, they do not take into account the impact of state and national politics on how people view local government and those involved with it.
Last week we wrote about how in some towns (notably Tuftonboro) some people are actively promoting distrust of local government and disrespecting local elected officials. In the case of Tuftonboro we know that the person in the forefront of the distrust and disrespect movement has more than one personal grudge against the town in general and two of the three selectmen in particular. The puzzle is why others listen to this person and allow his anger and conspiracy theories to drive their actions.
Some of those others were opposed to spending money on building a new Tuftonboro library, and for them the third defeat of that proposal at Town Meeting last week should settle things. The two new members elected to the budget committee will hopefully improve the atmosphere on that board, which has had a particularly testy relationship with selectmen over the past year or so.
In any event, we all need to commit ourselves to positive choices, to persuading the best and brightest among us to run for office and help us govern ourselves fairly and openly. We also need to respect those we elect for their dedication and service.
The simple fact is that local politics is not national politics. No one makes a living running for local office: in most towns the few officials who are paid a stipend make less than the minimum wage. There are few favors to sell and the openness of government makes it very difficult to do so.
The rewards of being an elected official are the pleasures of making sure government is responsive to residents and efficient as possible and earning the respect, trust and gratitude of your fellow townspeople. We can’t let a few unhappy people put those rewards at risk: don’t tolerate disrespect and distrust by your silence. Speak up.

Look at the last two words in this article: "Speak Up". In Alton, if one "speaks up", one gets "ARRESTED".

[Rusty]

Look at the last two words in this article: "Speak Up". In Alton, if one "speaks up", one gets "ARRESTED".

He didn't get arrested for speaking up.

[Seaplane Pilot]

He didn't get arrested for speaking up.

In my opinion, he most certainly did.

[Rusty]

Here is a comment made in todays "LETTERS" section of the LDS:

Alton Selectboard is now further restricting who can say what

After seeing what happened at the March 16 Alton selectmen’s meeting, I feel compelled to write this letter.
Loring Carr put a motion to restrict all public input to subjects that are on the agenda for that meeting. The vote was 4 to 1 to pass the motion, with Mr. Wittmann the only “no” vote. When I questioned this rule change I was told that public input was a privilege, not a right, and could be taken away at any time.
Starting immediately, we, the citizens of Alton, must write a letter to the town administrator to get permission to speak on subjects other than what is on the agenda.
“Public participation in the board’s regular meetings is a privilege that the board has adopted in order to assure that persons who wish to appear before the Board and bring matters to its attention may be heard.”
This statement is written in the rules governing selectmen’s meetings from the town website. I feel it is our right and duty to speak. It should not be a privilege given by the people we elect to represent us. If we do not have the right to free speech, what do we have left?
I feel it is time for the citizens of Alton to call for a public meeting of Selectboard to change this statement from privilege to speak, to right to speak on any subject.

Donald Kleeberg
Alton

[Bear Islander]

Here is a comment made in todays "LETTERS" section of the LDS:

Alton Selectboard is now further restricting who can say what

After seeing what happened at the March 16 Alton selectmen’s meeting, I feel compelled to write this letter.
Loring Carr put a motion to restrict all public input to subjects that are on the agenda for that meeting. The vote was 4 to 1 to pass the motion, with Mr. Wittmann the only “no” vote. When I questioned this rule change I was told that public input was a privilege, not a right, and could be taken away at any time.
Starting immediately, we, the citizens of Alton, must write a letter to the town administrator to get permission to speak on subjects other than what is on the agenda.
“Public participation in the board’s regular meetings is a privilege that the board has adopted in order to assure that persons who wish to appear before the Board and bring matters to its attention may be heard.”
This statement is written in the rules governing selectmen’s meetings from the town website. I feel it is our right and duty to speak. It should not be a privilege given by the people we elect to represent us. If we do not have the right to free speech, what do we have left?
I feel it is time for the citizens of Alton to call for a public meeting of Selectboard to change this statement from privilege to speak, to right to speak on any subject.

Donald Kleeberg
Alton

It seems like four of the five Alton selectmen have not learned one of the preeminent rules of politics. When you find yourself in a hole.... Stop Digging!

We can argue all day about exactly what "Free Speech" is and how it applies to this situation. However what is clear to me is that the selectmens actions have opened up the town to expensive litigation. It will cost the taxpayers even if they win. And will cost a lot more if they lose.

All the selectmen had to do was sit there and let the citizen ramble on for his five minutes. If he had kept talking at the end of that time, and had then been arrested, nobody would be saying his arrest was improper.

[LakeSnake]

Based on the actions of the selectmen after this incident, it appears to me that Mr Clay may have had a point and the selectment are out to prove he was right.

[Tired of Waiting]

With that letter it sounds like the folks are starting to wake up and see the light. The BOS keeps digging and digging and sooner or latter they will hit the fires of H@## well you know of where I speak. And they are going to get burnt badly.

ToW

[Rusty]

This was a good move by the Alton BoS and IMO they got some advice from the Town attorney to do what they did.
The board needs time to get things organized and find out how they want to handle public input so that it will be fair to the public and the board.

In the end I believe that the 5 minute public input time will allow anyone to say what they want as long as there isn't any violation of the BoS policy. The policy needs to be revised also because it was done in a hurry to put out a fire that was getting out of control.

Good job Alton BoS.

[ITD]

Alton needs new selectmen, elections have consequences, I'm glad I don't live there.

[Charlie T]

The BOS are acting like a kid on a ball field who are saying "my ball, my rules" and then changing the rules in the middle of the game because they aren't winning.

[tis]

If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.

[ITD]

If the Selectmen of any town don't want to listen to the people, they shouldn't run for office. They are elected to work FOR the people, not dictate TO them.

I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.

[tis]

I agree with this, but the time to weed these people out is election time, problem is most don't pay attention.


A truer statement was never made, ITD. Most people don't pay attention. But it is very hard to know how somebody is going to be and what they will do even if you pay attention. I have heard many over the years complain about the way the town is run and they get elected and go right along with the existing people. It is very easy to say they are going to this and that but doing it is something else. When some have run for reelection, I have read or heard what somebody SAYS they are going to do and if you look at their back history, they haven't done that at all. People most often have no idea what they are voting for.

[Bear Islander]

This was a good move by the Alton BoS and IMO they got some advice from the Town attorney to do what they did.
The board needs time to get things organized and find out how they want to handle public input so that it will be fair to the public and the board.

In the end I believe that the 5 minute public input time will allow anyone to say what they want as long as there isn't any violation of the BoS policy. The policy needs to be revised also because it was done in a hurry to put out a fire that was getting out of control.

Good job Alton BoS.

Rusty had me wondering just how badly this fire is out of control. So I went back and checked the Alton BOS Minutes. I went back to last June. There are two "Public Input" sessions per meeting. At no time did anyone speak at the second Public Input opportunity.

6/23/14 . 0 speakers
07/7/14 . 0 speakers
7/21/14 . 0 speakers
8/18/14 . 0 speakers
9/22/14 . 0 speakers
10/6/14 . 1 speaker
10/20/14 . 0 speakers
11/17/14 . 0 speakers
12/1/14 . 2 speakers
12/15/14 . 3 speakers
1/14/15 . 1 speaker

That is a total of 7 speakers in 8 months. Times are not listed but with a 5 minute limit that equates to a maximum of 35 minutes that the BOS have had to listen to "Public Input" over an 8 month period. Is the the FIRE that Rusty wants the BOS to put out?

[Tired of Waiting]

Looks like a real barn burner to me.

Some one actually spoke at one of their meetings. Oh the horror of it all.


ToW

[MDoug]

Wish George Orwell were around to comment.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Of course Lord Acton would be a welcome guest, also.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

[Rusty]

Rusty had me wondering just how badly this fire is out of control. So I went back and checked the Alton BOS Minutes. I went back to last June. There are two "Public Input" sessions per meeting. At no time did anyone speak at the second Public Input opportunity.

6/23/14 . 0 speakers
07/7/14 . 0 speakers
7/21/14 . 0 speakers
8/18/14 . 0 speakers
9/22/14 . 0 speakers
10/6/14 . 1 speaker
10/20/14 . 0 speakers
11/17/14 . 0 speakers
12/1/14 . 2 speakers
12/15/14 . 3 speakers
1/14/15 . 1 speaker

That is a total of 7 speakers in 8 months. Times are not listed but with a 5 minute limit that equates to a maximum of 35 minutes that the BOS have had to listen to "Public Input" over an 8 month period. Is the the FIRE that Rusty wants the BOS to put out?

Nice job with the research.
At all of those meetings there wasn't a 5 minute limit for public speaking. That got added to the policy after Mr. Clay spoke for over twenty minutes and wouldn't stop because the policy didn't have a time limit. He had to be escorted out of a few meetings because he wouldn't stop talking.
Anyway, what I meant by "FIRE" is when the trouble started with Mr.CLay sometime in the beginning of this year. He kept testing the board about time so they had to set a 5 minute time limit after that and as we all know got arrested.
This is unfortunate and I dislike it as much as anyone here. However, something had to be done and the BoS chose a route to take, that route might not of been the best one and it will probably cost the tax payers money to get a resolution.
I hope that it can be resolved without litigation and the Alton BoS can get back to the business of getting things done for all the citizens.

BTW, there are two new members on the board and a new chair was selected at the first meeting after the Town elections. I say this because someone said there needs to be new members on the board.

[Bear Islander]

Nice job with the research.
At all of those meetings there wasn't a 5 minute limit for public speaking. That got added to the policy after Mr. Clay spoke for over twenty minutes and wouldn't stop because the policy didn't have a time limit. He had to be escorted out of a few meetings because he wouldn't stop talking.
Anyway, what I meant by "FIRE" is when the trouble started with Mr.CLay sometime in the beginning of this year. He kept testing the board about time so they had to set a 5 minute time limit after that and as we all know got arrested.
This is unfortunate and I dislike it as much as anyone here. However, something had to be done and the BoS chose a route to take, that route might not of been the best one and it will probably cost the tax payers money to get a resolution.
I hope that it can be resolved without litigation and the Alton BoS can get back to the business of getting things done for all the citizens.

BTW, there are two new members on the board and a new chair was selected at the first meeting after the Town elections. I say this because someone said there needs to be new members on the board.

I can understand that the BOS wanted to do something about Mr. Clay talking for 20 minutes. They came up with a good solution, limit the "Public Input" to 5 minutes per person. However instead of allowing Mr. Clay his 5 minutes the had him arrested. And, yes, I saw the video, in my opinion "they had him arrested" is the proper wording.

I understand there have been at least 2 BOS meetings since his arrest. Does anybody know why the minutes of those meetings have not been posted?

[Rusty]

"A charge of disorderly conduct lodged against Jeffrey T. Clay that alleges he purposely caused a breach of the peace by disrupting the meeting by
continuing to speak after being informed “repetitively” by the board that public input was closed was dropped on March 23.
A second charge against him for knowingly refusing to comply with a lawful order given by Police Chief Ryan Heath to move from the Alton Town Hall is still pending and is scheduled for trial on April 6."

[Tired of Waiting]

Back peddling going on here.

Also the article may be wrong but brings up the part of whether the police chief was present during the meeting or was called in. One of the last paragraphs states that the selectmen left the room and brought back the chief.

This is what I always thought happened but some here have said that was not the case.

No I'm not going to watch the film again cause I feel it's a moot point to the case.

ToW

[lagoon]

It's not the rant, it's when the board asked the chief to remove Clay and Clay refused to get up and leave and he continued to talk.

It is the BOS who are wrong without much deep thought here. They granted Mr. Clay his 5 minutes, their choice, he spoke and was quickly interrupted, and the police ordered him to get up and subsequently arrested him. The BOS are clearly at fault and they need have followed thier own rules and waited 5 minutes and then, moved on.

It is as if they have patience for what they want to hear but discredit with actions like this, those issues and folks they do not want to listen to. Government does not work that way nor is it supposed to under the right to know laws in place today.

Also check on the legal bills Alton has had to pay out in the last 5-6 years, its online and its staggering. Alton and its legal representatives have taken on one losing campaign after another and one wonders why? Its right there on the website, money, big money, and the trend has been sharply upward all but a year or two. And who oversees the legal representatives of Alton, take a guess.

[mcdude]

this time at the School Committee meeting....
(from the Baysider may 14th)


ALTON — The Alton Central School Board met for its regular monthly meeting on Monday, May 11, in the school’s media center.
ACS Administrative assistant Janna Mellon spoke during public input regarding her concerns over cuts being made to support staff and the turnover of administrators.
Alton resident Jeffrey Clay also spoke during public input stating he was not fond of the five-minute limit imposed on the public during public input.
Clay touched on a few subjects including questioning how ethics violations are handled within the school board itself. He also stated the board should not have an ethics policy without a protocol for consequences related to violations.
Additionally, Clay requested the board update the community on the progress of hiring a new superintendent and a new principal.
School board Chairperson Krista Argiropolis* was poised to answer Clay’s questions when Vice-Chairperson Steve Miller called for a point of order.
Miller reminded Argiropolis and the rest of the board they were under no obligation to give information out in response to Clay’s questions at this time as it was public input.
Board member Terri Noyes agreed it was not appropriate to have a "back and forth" dialogue in public input, but she did not see a problem with giving out numbers.


*Argie's Wife on the forum

[Tired of Waiting]

See how it could go in the BOS meeting. Just let the fellow have his say and move on. Next.

Seems they handled it the right way. Maybe they learned from the BOS.


ToW

[tis]

ALTON, N.H. —Charges have been dismissed against an Alton man who refused to stop talking during a town board of selectmen meeting.

Jeffrey Clay said he was robbed of his right to free speech when the council cut him off, and a judge agreed.

The court called the board's actions censorship and said in the ruling that Clay did nothing wrong and arresting him violated his First Amendment rights.


There is more on the WMUR site if you want to read it all.

[Charlie T]

ALTON, N.H. —Charges have been dismissed against an Alton man who refused to stop talking during a town board of selectmen meeting.

Jeffrey Clay said he was robbed of his right to free speech when the council cut him off, and a judge agreed.

The court called the board's actions censorship and said in the ruling that Clay did nothing wrong and arresting him violated his First Amendment rights.


There is more on the WMUR site if you want to read it all.

I don't necessarily agree with what this guy had to say but I"m damn glad the court system worked and defended his right to say it. A small battle but a win for our country and the beliefs it was founded on!

[Tired of Waiting]

Stand up for your rights!! Now maybe the BOS will act like they should and the police state in Alton will relax a bit.

http://www.wmur.com/news/charges-dismissed-against-alton-man-in-free-speech-case/33488002


ToW

[HellRaZoR004]

I guess this isn't done yet.

http://www.wmur.com/news/aclu-sues-alton-over-mans-arrest-at-meeting/34179060

[LIforrelaxin]

I guess this isn't done yet.

http://www.wmur.com/news/aclu-sues-alton-over-mans-arrest-at-meeting/34179060

Of course the ACLU is suing the town... it is what is wrong with this country, there has to be a lawsuit with everything.... The BOS did what they did, the court decided that it was in appropriate, the charges where dropped... And Life should move on....Instead there is now a law suit by the ACLU, and soon to be we another I am sure by Mr. Clay Personally...

Did the BOS act rather hastily... Yep probably... the court thinks so
Did the BOS learn their lesson about the abuse of power??? who knows time will tell.....
Does Mr. Clay have a reputation that may have inspired the BOS to act the way they did.... Yep Probably, I know my research should he has an interesting past
Who will pay for the monetary gain of the ACLU lawsuit... The tax payers...

There was a mistake... let it go and move on.... PEOPLE ARENT PERFECT... lawsuits will not fix society!!!!!

[kawishiwi]

There is a lot to be said for moving on but, a court has found that first amendment rights were violated by the government. Enforcing accountability for that is not trivial. I would feel a greater injustice if nothing were done about it. Rock on ACLU!

[VitaBene]

There is a lot to be said for moving on but, a court has found that first amendment rights were violated by the government. Enforcing accountability for that is not trivial. I would feel a greater injustice if nothing were done about it. Rock on ACLU!

Something was done about it. Clay is a semi-professional muckraker.

As noted, the taxpayers are "the government" who pays.

[kawishiwi]

Something was done about it. Clay is a semi-professional muckraker.

As noted, the taxpayers are "the government" who pays.

Saving a few dollars per taxpayer are more important than the govt using police power to silence a citizens constitutional rights under the 1st amendment? Really? REALLY?

[VitaBene]

Saving a few dollars per taxpayer are more important than the govt using police power to silence a citizens constitutional rights under the 1st amendment? Really? REALLY?

I prefer to see our local town's limited dollars spent on educating students, repairing roads and policing the streets rather than paying the costs of defense and potential payout of a lawsuit. If that makes my priorities "weird" so be it!

[smith point boater]

Agree 110% with Vitabene. A mistake was made, challenged, judicated and resolved. We don't need the town (and ultimately the tax payers) wasting money on legal fees when there are other more important issues in the town.
Get over it and move on

[Bear Islander]

I prefer to see our local town's limited dollars spent on educating students, repairing roads and policing the streets rather than paying the costs of defense and potential payout of a lawsuit. If that makes my priorities "weird" so be it!

I agree with you. I would not want my tax dollars used to defend a stupid lawsuit. That is why I want my towns elected officials to respect the rights of it's citizens, and not get the town in situations like this.

I can agree that there is to much litigation in our society. However if I am ever arrested in similar circumstances, and the judge later says I was being censored, I will file a lawsuit - guaranteed!

Perhaps the people posting that he should "just move on" have never been arrested, cuffed and booked when what they were doing was perfectly legal.

[Mr. V]

One can only hope the lawsuit will act to deter others from discharging their public duties in a ham-fisted, tyrannical manner.

I suspect the end-cost of litigation will be borne by the insurance carrier (assuming this is a covered risk) as opposed to the tax payers, but no doubt future insurance premiums will increase.

[Pineedles]

I used to believe that if there was no malice and no gross neglect, suing is not who I am. However, several years ago I fell on some ice at my sportsman's club that had not been cleared the day before and was now covered with a fine coat of snow. Ended up rupturing my quads. Insurance paid for the operation, short term disability paid my salary, and all I was out was the co-pay for rehab. I didn't sue even though it was negligent to not have removed the ice, particularly since the surface was directly behind the pistol ports and was on an incline. If I sued, I would only be "taxing" my own club and club members.

The next year I observed the same situation with ice not being removed. The officers of the club didn't learn their lesson. If I had sued, perhaps they would have. Who knows?