The Concord City Council voted last night to approve Aspell's incomplete report, burying any real investigation into the abuse of power and conflict of interest allegations against former City Council Kathy Rogers, who is now a candidate for Merrimack County Attorney. It was a unanimous voice vote, according to the city clerk.
With this vote, the Council has said that they are above investigation, above reproach, and can do whatever they want, including having ordinary citizens investigated by the police for having public documents which were received from the city administration via a records request. They can hold sham subcommittee meetings, allow people to lie in them, and have no consequence or authority to anyone but themselves.
Wow, can anyone say politburo?
At the same time, if you are an ordinary citizen, and you want to file a report against a city councilor or anyone affiliated with ConcordTV, don't bother. You will be listened to by the powers that be, but no one will charge them with anything, whether the people you want investigated break laws or city charter or whatever. They are seemingly all above the law even if they lie in testimony, hide public records, or even change things around to protect themselves. They can target you with investigation but no one will look at them.
This was a disgraceful decision by the Concord City Council and they should be ashamed of themselves.
What is even more worrisome is that if elected County Attorney, Rogers will have the power to subpoena and create grand juries to investigate anyone - a frightening thought if anyone in their right mind took more than a minute or two to consider the point. Essentially, the same person - Rogers - who targeted a citizen trying to get answers will have the power to target anyone. Even more egregious is the fact - again, not opinion, but fact - that the document Watrous provided to the Rules Committee proved that one of the witnesses, a friend of Rogers', gave false testimony about her employment! It proved Watrous correct on one of the Rules Committee questions which the committee then blithely swatted away, with the exception of Rogers calling the cops on Watrous.
What is going to happen in our county court system with Rogers dictating the cases? Councilor Dan St. Hilaire, the current County Attorney and now, a candidate for Governor's Council on the Republican ballot, is probably the one person who should know better. He is the current attorney. He knows the power of the job. And yet, he was complicit too in sweeping this all away. Why?
Is anyone else outraged by this? You should be!
One now has to wonder what our daily newspaper will do, if anything at all. Will they go along to get along or will they stand up for what is right? We know what it has done in the past. The Concord Monitor often opines about the need for open records and the need for elected officials to be accountable. That is, unless they aren't interested in the public records a citizen seeks or if a connected politician complains about a story to an editor. What they are kinda saying is this: Oh well then ... your questions don't deserve to be asked ... and we will protect any harmful things anyone says about those politicians even if it is a fact ...
The Monitor has been one-sided, pitiful, and borderline arrogant in its coverage of this issue ... three to one sourcing against Watrous in hit pieces against him; misquotations, according to him; absolutely missing the point on why the story is so important; framing the entire story completely wrong in some cases; etc. [Some have wondered if it had anything to do with the fact that in the past, the Monitor was paid to host CCTV's Web site. It hasn't been a lot of money, but who knows at this point].
In addition, don't even try to talk about Rogers and her reprehensible behavior or even use the information in a letter on why you might be voting for one of her opponents. The editors at the Monitor will probably censor that out of your letter. So much for standing up for accountability.
In closing I will say this: I don't have all the answers. I don't claim to be anymore than what I am, at face value. But I'm sick of all this and you should be too. The most important thing to remember is that you - yes, you - could be the one getting the shaft. Everyone likes to think that it is always someone else who is going to get it. Well, it could be you next.
If anyone out there has any ideas on how to fix these things, I'm all ears. Feel free to contact me at ourconcord@yahoo.com. Your emailed suggestions will be kept confidential.
With this vote, the Council has said that they are above investigation, above reproach, and can do whatever they want, including having ordinary citizens investigated by the police for having public documents which were received from the city administration via a records request. They can hold sham subcommittee meetings, allow people to lie in them, and have no consequence or authority to anyone but themselves.
Wow, can anyone say politburo?
At the same time, if you are an ordinary citizen, and you want to file a report against a city councilor or anyone affiliated with ConcordTV, don't bother. You will be listened to by the powers that be, but no one will charge them with anything, whether the people you want investigated break laws or city charter or whatever. They are seemingly all above the law even if they lie in testimony, hide public records, or even change things around to protect themselves. They can target you with investigation but no one will look at them.
This was a disgraceful decision by the Concord City Council and they should be ashamed of themselves.
What is even more worrisome is that if elected County Attorney, Rogers will have the power to subpoena and create grand juries to investigate anyone - a frightening thought if anyone in their right mind took more than a minute or two to consider the point. Essentially, the same person - Rogers - who targeted a citizen trying to get answers will have the power to target anyone. Even more egregious is the fact - again, not opinion, but fact - that the document Watrous provided to the Rules Committee proved that one of the witnesses, a friend of Rogers', gave false testimony about her employment! It proved Watrous correct on one of the Rules Committee questions which the committee then blithely swatted away, with the exception of Rogers calling the cops on Watrous.
What is going to happen in our county court system with Rogers dictating the cases? Councilor Dan St. Hilaire, the current County Attorney and now, a candidate for Governor's Council on the Republican ballot, is probably the one person who should know better. He is the current attorney. He knows the power of the job. And yet, he was complicit too in sweeping this all away. Why?
Is anyone else outraged by this? You should be!
One now has to wonder what our daily newspaper will do, if anything at all. Will they go along to get along or will they stand up for what is right? We know what it has done in the past. The Concord Monitor often opines about the need for open records and the need for elected officials to be accountable. That is, unless they aren't interested in the public records a citizen seeks or if a connected politician complains about a story to an editor. What they are kinda saying is this: Oh well then ... your questions don't deserve to be asked ... and we will protect any harmful things anyone says about those politicians even if it is a fact ...
The Monitor has been one-sided, pitiful, and borderline arrogant in its coverage of this issue ... three to one sourcing against Watrous in hit pieces against him; misquotations, according to him; absolutely missing the point on why the story is so important; framing the entire story completely wrong in some cases; etc. [Some have wondered if it had anything to do with the fact that in the past, the Monitor was paid to host CCTV's Web site. It hasn't been a lot of money, but who knows at this point].
In addition, don't even try to talk about Rogers and her reprehensible behavior or even use the information in a letter on why you might be voting for one of her opponents. The editors at the Monitor will probably censor that out of your letter. So much for standing up for accountability.
In closing I will say this: I don't have all the answers. I don't claim to be anymore than what I am, at face value. But I'm sick of all this and you should be too. The most important thing to remember is that you - yes, you - could be the one getting the shaft. Everyone likes to think that it is always someone else who is going to get it. Well, it could be you next.
If anyone out there has any ideas on how to fix these things, I'm all ears. Feel free to contact me at ourconcord@yahoo.com. Your emailed suggestions will be kept confidential.
No comments:
Post a Comment