Search This Blog



What Happens When a Selectwoman Challenges the Town of Piermont? – Part 3

By CNHT | April 10, 2017

What Happens When a Selectwoman Challenges the Town of Piermont? – Part 3
Defamation of a Selectwoman to Hide Right to Know Violations.

Introduction from Part 1:

If you still don’t understand that your own NH town is a good place to start draining the swamp, please read on

Piermont is a small town in Grafton County, New Hampshire. When we say small, we mean it — the population of Piermont was a mere 790 at the 2010 census.

When Teran “Terri” Mertz, wife of George Mertz, Commander, USN (Ret) was elected to a seat on the 3-person Selectboard in 2016 for a three-year term, she never expected that her attempts to insure the town simply follow rules and procedures would lead to harassment, threats of arrest, and even an attempt to ban her from entering the town offices.

After being in office only a few days, Selectwoman Mertz found many reasons to ask questions about town contracts and the actions of the other Board members.

For doing so, she found herself immediately under verbal attack and the object of intentional public defamation based on false and derogatory statements directed at her from the other Board members, Town officials and employees.

It all came about because she:
– Dared to question a Selectman who appeared to have made a decision affecting the Town without Board discussion.
- Refused to consent to an agreement she’d never seen and which had never been discussed in any detail by the Board.
- Questioned what services were being performed for a contract that did not exist but that the Town had been paying increasing amounts for each year.
- Dared to purchase her own business cards with the title “Selectwoman” instead of “Selectman” on them because the office staff took over two months to order the regular cards for her despite repeated requests.
- Pointed out that a quorum of Selectboard members could not meet with anyone to conduct Town business outside of a properly called public meeting.
- Asked what was being done to ensure a Request for Proposals for the Town’s expiring Property Assessment contract was sent out as soon as possible.

Instead of working with her to correct what she felt were clear violations of the people’s right to know or conduct Town business in a professional, open manner for all citizens to see and read, the other Selectboard members not only continued what they were doing, she says they began refusing to give her documents she requested, or act on anything she brought to the Board for consideration.

As a Board member, she has the right to request any item she wanted be put on the agenda if she thought it was of benefit to the Town, but to prevent her from doing so and to make it is difficult as possible for her, she says they:
- Required that she provide extraordinary documentation for anything she wanted on the agenda, while neither of them had to for any of their agenda items.
- Began refusing to put her items on the agenda unless she submitted a request at first one, then two, then a completely arbitrary number of days before a meeting.
- Even then they wouldn’t put her items on the agenda, despite the fact that they were for the benefit of the people of the Town, like the expiring property assessment contract or timely ambulance service for the eastern portion of the Town.

She says despite the fact that she tried to work with them again and again, their continued refusal over the next two months to even discuss anything with her led her to have to:
- Object to the other two Board members secretly creating two new positions without job descriptions.
- Object to the hiring of two current employees to fill those positions without advertising the positions publically.
- Insist that meeting minutes contain a brief summary of all items discussed, the results of votes taken and motions passed as required by RSA 91-A:2.
- Object to meeting minutes being censored with entire discussions intentionally omitted even after she requested they be included.

For all that, she says, she was subjected to further vicious verbal attacks in private and in public meetings by the other Board members, office staff and misinformed members of the public, with childish rationalizations such as “Move out of town if you don’t like the way we run things here”.

As punishment for daring to purchase her own business cards, then Chairman Randy Subjeck wasted hours of Town office and public meeting time chastising her for placing her picture on the front of the card and what he referred to, in an appalling display of unawareness, as a “splotch” on the back of the card, which was nothing more than a form of bar code used on most business cards now and grocery items; even the US Post Office has been using it for years.

But what seemed to anger him the most was that she had the nerve to use the title of “Selectwoman” in place of “Selectman”.
Maybe that was too feminist for him, which made him think it was an illegal title?

Mr. Subjeck did appeared to think it was illegal because he wasted more time claiming he had thoroughly searched the statutes and could find nowhere in there that “Selectwoman” was a permissible title.

Selectman Stubbings seemed at first to contradict him, saying he had no problem with her card or her picture on it and he thought it was a good idea to have pictures of Town personnel in other places as well, but then said that what he objected to was that she didn’t ask his/ their permission to do so first.

That completely ignores the fact that both he and Mr. Subjeck are accused of routinely acting upon many much more important matters by themselves or together that expend Town funds or make deals without one word to her or revealing their actions in a public meeting.

Mr. Subjeck’s scolding of Selectwoman Mertz was scheduled to continue at the next meeting but the next day he was informed that not only was there a statute that permitted her use of the title “Selectwoman”, it was one of the very first articles. Had Mr. Subjeck actually searched the statutes using the “Search” field kindly provided by the state for online research, simply by typing in the word “Selectwoman” he would have found the statute in less than a minute.

Instead, he may not have done any kind of research at all and may have just been looking for a way to try to embarrass Selectwoman Mertz in public.

But why would he choose to do that? She certainly hadn’t done anything wrong or wasted Town time and taxpayer money like he seemed willing to do over a nothing issue.

It could have been handled by letting it go and then at some other time make a policy if the rest of the Board thought it was necessary to spend time on such a small issue.

There were certainly much larger issues to tackle, like the expiring property assessment contract that Selectwoman Mertz was trying to ensure stayed visible to the public, but kept getting swept aside by what appeared to be the much more pressing need to defame her in public at almost every meeting after she began asking questions they didn’t like and made favored persons uncomfortable.

Instead, as was testified to in Court, prior to the Board meeting he spoke to the then Executive Assistant and requested that she bring up the matter during her report. Maybe he thought if a complaint came from another person in the office it would appear to be a bigger problem than it actually was?

Once he was told about that statute, though, he immediately dropped his other objections about her picture and his splotch without a word of apology to her or informing the public at the next meeting why she was now permitted to place her business cards in the Town office.

Since all Selectboard members have equal authority and status under the law, with the Chair being mainly a ceremonial position, nothing more, she actually did not need his or Mr. Stubbings permission to purchase, at personal expense, and display her own business cards.

But apparently in Piermont she does need the permission of the male members of the Board, even though it was perfectly legal for her to use the Selectwoman title or how many hours of public time and money it wasted.

As the weeks went by, she says they continued to ignore her requests, acted without informing her of what they were doing, continued to hold secret meetings and encouraged gross insubordination from office staff toward her.

Then and only then did she seek legal advice, not immediately after being elected as the Piermont rumor mill maintains.

Topics: Litigation Updates, Right to Know, Town Government, Town Meetings | Comments Off

NHPR has the “Facts” But Not the Story?

By CNHT | April 3, 2017

Here is how NHPR starts out a voter fraud exposé.

“While President Trump and some of his allies perpetuate the (unverified and unsubstantiated) idea that out-of-state voters are being sent across the border en masse to throw New Hampshire elections, we were wondering: What can we actually know about the people who are showing up to register for the first time on Election Day?”

In this obviously biased NHPR story there is a link to a file showing how many voters used an out of state driver’s license to vote in NH.

Each NH municipality keeps a list of same day voters and with each name there is a notation of which state they show ID from. I have seen these municipal lists with the notation of the contributing state marked in red for the Secretary of State’s use. I know that lists exist in each municipality. We used to call these lists, the “Addendum.” Addendums are no longer a public document. Now we just see totals.

When any municipality sends its voter addendum to the NH Secretary of State each voter’s name and given address, real or not, is in the hands of the SoS. Where does it go from there? Does the NH Secretary of State give or loan this very valuable data to anyone? I have access to the entire Massachusetts voter database with voter histories going back years. All William Gardner should do is make public, what is public information, specifically, who votes in NH. Is that so hard?

Several weeks ago, I went to Durham with a list of twelve special snowflakes who were arrested for various things snowflakes get arrested for. Of the twelve snowflakes, seven were out of state snowflakes who were also on the Durham voter checklist. If you are arrested four months after voting in NH with an out of state driver’s license, and no other form of NH domicile, you are still a resident of that state. By April 15, 2017 these snowflakes might have had to file state income tax returns for their home state. That would be an indication of their true legal domicile.

Recently, NH SoS Bill Gardner admitted to NH1 News that a NH US Senate seat may have been effected by voter fraud. Anyone with a pocket calculator can show that – with proper public documents. NH keeps those documents non-public. NH citizens should ask why.

Every time you see any elected official in NH ask them why Vermont can email their entire statewide database to anyone asking – but NH cannot.

How does NH’s “Right to Know Law” not cover something as important as the tools to uncover voter fraud?

Topics: Vote Fraud | Comments Off

Let’s Get Real About New Hampshire Voter Fraud

By CNHT | April 1, 2017

by Ed Naile

NH1 News seems to be the only statewide media, other than bloggers, interested in the possible loss of a US Senate seat to voter fraud. NH1 News has a detailed story here:

Finally, Secretary of State William Gardner is beginning to open the door to the possibility of voter fraud effecting statewide elections in NH. It is a breakthrough even though the numbers he uses are not what they seem.

Let us take a look at this one paragraph about the 6,000 General Election voters who somehow showed up in person to vote in a statewide election – but did not happen to have any legitimate identification on their person.

Check out this paragraph:

“Figures released earlier this year from the Secretary of State’s office indicate that nearly 6,000 first-time New Hampshire voters in the November election used an out-of-state identification, with many of those people casting ballots in towns in and around colleges and universities. All legal under state law, but adding fuel to arguments by New Hampshire Republicans who are advocating for changes to the state’s election laws.”

NH1 was told about 6,000 registered to vote and voted same-day using out of state driver’s licenses. Then the claim that is legal under state law. I would like to know which state law lets a non-resident vote in NH because I have yet to find one. You can use an out of state driver’s license in the extremely rare case you are in transition from one state to another – but temporary non-citizens must still follow their home state’s laws. There are 49 other states with various laws regarding their citizens voting in another state. It is illegal in all the states I have checked and in a Federal Election it is illegal and unconstitutional as well.

Then there is more:

“More than 4,000 of those 5,903 people using out-of-state licenses to register voted in towns with a high percentage of college students, such as Durham (home to the University of New Hampshire), Hanover and Lebanon (Dartmouth College), Keene (Keene State University), Plymouth (Plymouth State University), Rindge (Franklin Pierce University), Henniker (New England College), and the Manchester area (SNHU and Saint Anselm University).”

I have news for NH citizens who are reading this story and what Bill Gardner gave NH1 for numbers. It is very misleading.
I have a copy of the Durham Town Report to use as a reference. It says that just over 3,000 Durham “citizens” registered on November 8, 2016. But it also says just over 2,000 registered in February for the NH Primary. That would be 5,000 new “citizens” in NH in just two days in Durham alone.

Here is the fun part. Most UNH students have bulk mail, unless they are off campus. Half pay out-of-state tuition. How does a college student wind up on the returned envelope list of same day voters who used an out of state license as ID? The Post Office cannot find a UNH, or any other college student in a college town several weeks after using that address to vote?

Could it be they simply refuse to return the Secretary of State letter confirming the address they gave to vote? Did they transfer to another school within several weeks of voting in NH? Are they really current students?

Maybe the upcoming “investigation” NH is going to conduct into the 458 same-day ghost voters whose mail bounced back will shed some light on the subject. It would be nice if we investigated all the same day voters who used out-of-state driver’s licenses to vote in NH. How about counting the Presidential Primary as well? Is that too much to ask? It is the same problem.

Is anyone investigating the people who showed up to vote same-day with zero identification. That would be the ones who we take a picture and affidavit from? That wasn’t clear from Gardner’s interview.

I think if we used real numbers, instead of conveniently dodging the total amount of out-of-state voters, the number of people we need to investigate might be a bit higher than 458.

When this investigation is over it would be nice to see the names of the 480 ghost voters who might have swayed a US Senate race in NH.

Oh, but that public information is not public, nor is our taxpayer-payed-for statewide voter database, as they are in many other states – so how would anyone find out?

Topics: Vote Fraud | Comments Off

« Previous Entries Next Entries »