NH cop stalks town resident

[Swimmy]

Agreed, but if that were true, she's made similar claims in the past, why hasn't the town just come out and said so? How do you know it's not a town official trying to spread disinformation?

All I want are the facts, the town is doing a damn good job of keeping them from us. Perhaps if the town was more willing to actually do their jobs as government officials, there wouldn't be a need to have to try and discern the bs from the bull. We'd have all the facts and there would be no need for caution.

Again, why would the town try and violate FOIL by trying to tell a FOIL requester that he needed to provide proof that the information was FOIL-able? That's not what the FOIL law says. The town clerk has been there for 20+ years. You mean to tell me that with that one particular request she has no idea what the FOIL law says?

The numbers don't add up. And if the other suggestions you indicated were true, then there would be no reason for the town to cover up the situation. The town would have already indicated that the complainant has made similar claims before and that this is getting to be absurd we'll look into it and put an end to this behavior. But the town did nothing of the sort. Their reactions to her presence and subsequent actions and behaviors leave a lot to be answered for, more so than just the unsupported idea that she has a history of making similar claims.

[Swimmy]

I am sure earl reed would have said something along the lines of, "how is this complaint different than the rest of the ones in the past?" Rather than do what he actually did. I'm sure she would not have been as professional if she was a person who routinely made outlandish claims. I'm sure all the members would have been snickering and laughing. Instead, they were angry and argumentative. At the next meeting they were gloating that reed spoke to his good friend and she wouldn't be "bothering us anymore." Why make those comments or behave that way, if the complaint was merit-less?

Just seems all the town officials are quick to dismiss her, and keep all the facts of this situation as hushed up as possible. WHY? If it is as you seem to suggest, corner, why? Where is the need for a police chief to refuse a "restricted delivery" letter? Or for an officer to be instructed not to take her statement? Or for the town supervisor to brag about his influence over the da (an attorney professional code of conduct violation for the DA to allow to be made)? Why do through such lengths keep the truth from the public? Maybe at one time, it might have been a private matter, but that ended when she made her situation known at a public meeting.

Even the town attorney agreed that the information should be disclosed because it had already been discussed in a public meeting.

So, why all the secrecy for a harmless complaint from a woman with a history of similar complaints, if we follow your theories?

I guess, until you have dealt with the town in other matters, trying to get public information, such as the PILOT agreement. You don't know how the town operates and would have no reason to believe they are intentionally covering up a credible complaint. Until last week, the town religiously denied that a signed PILOT agreement for the new business park existed. earl reed was willing to go as far as to certify to that fact. Then, when the town attorney was also asked to certify to its nonexistence, a copy of the PILOT agreement magically appeared. Why?

The stormwater management committee, at the advice of the town attorney closed its meetings to the public, in direct contravention of the state open meetings act. It took a notice of claim and the promise of an article 78 before the committee and the town attorney decided it was time to start complying with state law.

The 840 intersection proposal did not have DOT engineers' approval until reed strong-armed a higher up. But try FOIL-ing the SEQRA-mandated EIS for the intersection or the business park. It does not exist. I know because I did the research into whether it was possible to have consumer square shut down for a lack of an EIS and to sue for intentional trespass for the increased waterflow onto downstream properties adversely affected by the manipulated topography. Turns out, you can.

But the town insists that the 1999 EIS is sufficient for all of these projects. Read this.

There are countless other instances of the town trying to cover up its corrupt behavior. If it was as innocent as people believe then why the need to hush up everyone asking questions about this issue? Why not come right out and explain that this is a baseless complaint by someone with a history of making such complaints? Where is the proof that she has this history? There is evidence of a genuine complaint but nothing to discredit it other than disinformation.

[corner]

i understand with and agree with your assertions all im saying is more info is needed before a judgement can be made as to the veracity of the whole issue... New Hartford no doubt should change its name to Peyton Place.. my main exposure to New Hartfordites was watching their teenagers for many years coming down to Bleeker st making heroin buys..