Doug--thank you for doing that. I don't believe I was spreading a rumor but simply trying to confirm something. I too wrote to Ellen and received no response, which pretty well confirmed what I believed to be a fact. I heard/saw you ask the same question and as I said, believe the question has been answered.
Safety First, I'm just wondering if you've conducted a scientific study to be able to state with such certainty that "everybody in town everybody online agrees with Doug"? I'm just as certain that your claim is false.
It's not been my exerience that everyone agrees with me; however, it has been my experience that a lot of people only interact with people who agree with them. Thus, they are surprised to learn that there are people who think differently.
One thing that I'm repeatedly surprised about is how people mistakenly think that reports of the news are creations of the news. I'm not the one who complained about the decision. I'm just reporting that there have been complaints. I know that at least one complaint has been submitted in writing to the BOS. It's news, so I report it.
Speaking of a rumor that could be news...I didn't hear it until it was too late to check in with the Town. Have the Vilchocks sent a demand letter over their dismissal from the FD?
I wish that people who post here would treat each other and our elected officials with more respect. Just because there are decisions and interpretations that we may not agree with doesn't mean something nefarious is going on. It's always a good rule of thumb to avoid attributing to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence. Regardless of whether the board acted illegally, no one brought the issue up at the time. I was in the room and it did not occur to me that anything was wrong.
Funds were the result of BOS failure to fulfilll legislative body clear mandate on emergency service manning for FY 2024.
(Evidenced by FY 2024 town budget approval.)
Clearily, TA White and BOS led by Morin did not comply with will of legislative body!
Chief Woodman circumvented the established Capital Improvement Planning process. What a better way than to reward for not following the Nottingham established process! These actions are typical of the Nottingham TA and BOS, i.e. do not follow established processes.
Finally, couldn't the surplus be applied to buy diwn tax rate? Every little crumb to Nottingham peasants would help. It was peasants money to begin with.
Nottingham government is a mini Washington DC, disgusting behavior. Officials guided by hubris is the norm.
Chief Woodman regularly is known to make her own executive decisions. Whether it's not following Nottingham Police department policy, knowingly allow towns workers to operate inebriated as she does our new dog catcher... Or using her powers to help circumvent purchases to her own benefit in illary guide to the poor towns people who could use a kickback.
We’re all supposed to sit back and just assume our BoS is doing the right thing at all times, not to worry Kamee will surely sound the alarm when necessary.
Question nothing and continue to watch our town crumble because Kamee is here to save us from ourselves!
Oh she's a lawyer. Didn't see that. What a surprise. Thank you for bringing that to light and when you call her out with fax look how unprofessional she sounds. This is how a lawyer would reply to you. JJ Dat .. like you said, clearly someone masquerading for the town. I thought it was some liberal whack but obviously it's worse. A lawyer that's clearly on the wrong side of the voting table...Ugh... Thank you for your post...
From the very beginning, your reply is 100% defensive and in favor of the town. Clearly you are not putting the townspayers first, you're just reciting legislature and using it to your advantage cause it of one of them. Clearly the town is doing things behind our backs as they always have and now they continue to double down. If you're going to go to bat for somebody, why don't you do it for the townspeople who clearly need somebody like you who could provide good recourse for these egregious things that have been done to us all
The only thing incoherent may be your ability to comprehend and not read between the lines.
There were no allegations of concealing anything... Stop your fear-mongering.. but you're a lawyer. You can't help yourself..
You incoherently misunderstood. It was mentioned for transparency-- Let's see the money all the lawyers ( clearly not you ,)..have made from NOTT taxpayers. because lawyers love lawsuits.
The town has already stated they want to sue one of the attorney firms for its mishandling in several instances.. Is that incoherent?.. 😂
I wrote the TA and got no answer. I then asked at the BOS meeting. The TA said that there was legal correspondence that the BOS had received and that is part of the board's sealed minutes and, therefore, is not subject to right-to-know.
Speaking of a rumor that could be news...I didn't hear it until it was too late to check in with the Town. Have the Vilchocks sent a demand letter over their dismissal from the FD?
No, Doug. I pointed you to case law from the highest court in NH that conclusively states that your analysis does not matter. The legislature was clear that they did not want the Doug Bates of the world second-guessing and trying to undermine elected officials provided they did not increase the overall tax burden voters had explicity approved. (The distinction you highlight is immaterial as should be obvious by reading the rest of the case or the statute. The plain meaning of the statute doesn't change based on the circumstances or motivation that led to the decision to make transfers in money allocated between categories.)
If you believe the Town being sued is a bad thing, why do you work so hard to foment discontent and encourage lawsuits? Do you stand to benefit personally from the proceeds of any demand, lawsuit (or potential settlement therefrom) against the Town?
So, you think that because I reported that two citizens have complained about the legality of a BOS decision, I'm getting paid off as part of a conspiracy against the Town.
The answer is no, the BOS did not act illegally. Further answering, the BOS (or school board, if it is a school budget) can always decide to spend money differently than the categories put forth with the estimated budget expenses by transferring funds between budgeting accounts as long as it doesn't exceed the total amount appropriated and the amount wasn't raised via warrant article for a specific purpose (meaning that money appropriated pursuant to a warrant article authorizing an appropriation specifically to buy a tractor cannot instead be used for text books, for example). This is also why they are not required to spend money they budget for and don't end up needing - the budget process is based on estimates and any good budget has a cushion built in for unforseen expenses that may arise. In addition, as the RSA states, "neither the budget committee nor other citizens shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of the governing body in making such transfers."
RSA 32:10 ( "If changes arise during the year following the annual meeting that make it necessary to expend more than the amount appropriated for a specific purpose, the governing body may transfer to that appropriation an unexpended balance remaining in some other appropriation... ")
I'm fairly certain you know all of this, so once again, I am left wondering why you are trying to stir the pot and encourage people to sue the Town?
I do not think you are drawing an accurate inference from your reading of RSA 32:10. Here's the key portion of the text:
"If changes arise during the year following the annual meeting that make it necessary to expend more than the amount appropriated for a specific purpose, the governing body may transfer to that appropriation an unexpended balance remaining in some other appropriation...."
This text has three key criteria for transferring funds:
1. Did changes arise during the year? The answer is no.
2. Was the expenditure necessary? No - at least not in this time frame.
3. Were there existing appropriations in the budget for these purposes? Probably.
Therefore it would appear that 32:10 does not apply to this situation as the appropriation fails two of the three criteria.
Regarding this issue of your being fairly certain about my knowing something, what I know is that in journalism, one reports what happens. What happened here is that citizens are complaining about the actions of the BOS. Why do you find it objectionable for citizens to learn about their complaints?
I find it objectionable that you do not know what you are talking about but consistently act like you do, or intentionally omit information that does not suit your narrative, while also trying to encourage people to take harmful steps against the Town, which you then also complain about because even successful lawsuits where the Town is vindicated are in your view, a failure since they still cost money to defend against (apparently). This is not journalism; it is activism trying to masquerade as journalism, and contravenes even the most lax journalism standards.
Moreover, presenting a known or easily verified falsehood as an academic exercise or question to be answered may skirt defamation laws but IMO, it's still pretty transparent in terms of integrity.
Read the case law or stop being a make-believe lawyer/pot-stirrer. The Supreme Court of NH has rejected this exact argument because "a challenge to the exercise of transfer authority is inappropriate because RSA 32:10, I(b) expressly denies citizens the “authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of the governing body in making such transfers.” RSA 32:10, I(b)." A true journalist would have researched this as part of their due diligence and if they still felt compelled to report this nonsense, would at a minimum have included their report that "any citizen complaints regarding BOS decisions to reallocate budget funds are unlikely to prevail because...."
Yes, it is my opinion that getting the town sued is a bad thing. Only a lawyer would think that getting sued is a good thing. Normal people think it's bad.
I noticed you did not respond to my question, "Why do you find it objectionable for citizens to learn about their complaints?" I also noticed that you ignored the analysis of RSA 32:10 that substantiated the citizen complaints. You similarly ignored the issue about the town's purchasing policy. Before you accuse anyone of pursuing a narrative, you should consider how obvious it is that you are disregarding the issues in order to pursue a narrative.
I've read Sullivan v Hampton BOS which you quote in your latest comment but do not cite. The findings in that case appear to be about a different situation than what applies here. It's about adjustments between line items within a default operating budget; it's not about major capital expenditures that are normally presented to the legislative body for a decision.
Regarding your claim, "presenting a known or easily verified falsehood as an academic exercise or question to be answered may skirt defamation laws but IMO, it's still pretty transparent in terms of integrity," you are just substituting your opinion about a contentious issue as something that is "known or easily verified." It's not known. What is known is that citizens have a right to complain about the actions of their government and they have a right to make those complaints known. There's no caveat in there about Kamee having to agree with their opinions.
Honestly, listening to your liberal way of talking sounds very suspicious. You're clearly acting out against the most intelligent person who regularly and consistently gives people facts spends hours and hours a day doing so. Why don't you stop doubling down on your double Jeopardy bologna you're putting down. Because everybody in town everybody online agrees with Doug. Please post your comments on social media and let's see how they go over. Thank you
It's really simple lady. You've been smoking mirrors in a dog and pony show for the town since the beginning. Your attacks are purposely. Copying pasting rsas and interjecting your personal jealousy of how thoroughly Doug does his job. There's a reason why people are complaining. There's a reason why people like you are getting called out. And it's only growing and your reaction only serves to enlighten people like myself and others reading these threads that you are clear taking a 100% defensive standpoint as would be a typical lawyer. Instead of asking Doug, if he's making a kickback, why don't you post your paychecks from the town and be transparent? Then we really be enlightened. Of course it's people's business. Our taxpayers pay your salary. We should know everything and all you doing is delay and deposing typical lawyer talk.
This comment is somewhat incoherent, but the allegations that I am somehow concealing a paid relationship and acting to harm Nottingham's taxpayers are clear. As I am sure Doug can confirm for you, if the Town was paying me for work in any capacity, that compensation would be a matter of public record. There is no need for your baseless character attacks on me as a professional, premised on false information concerning my work, when you can easily confirm that I am not working on behalf of the Town by making a simple request for information to the Town. Kindly do your homework before attacking me professionally.
To the best of my knowledge, Kamee Verdrager has never received any compensation from the town of Nottingham. I don't think her name has appeared as a vendor in any Town Report.
Reporting on the questionable behavior of our notoriously dishonest board of selectmen and town administrator is now considered ‘stirring the pot’?
Ha!
Got it Kamee.
Just another loud mouthed know it all attorney shouting down the messenger and the concerned taxpayers of Nottingham.
It’s a good thing we have a citizen journalist and other common folk keeping a close eye on our untrustworthy town govt and their reckless spending.
Also, love how Kamee the lawyer purposely ignores this..…‘Further, the board failed to abide by its own purchasing policy, which requires competitive sealed bidding for purchases over $10k.’
I am fairly certain she saw this and chose to ignore it, which once again left me questioning her intellectual integrity, encouraging people to look the other way from the obvious misconduct by the board of selectmen.
I am also fairly certain the town getting sued has more to do with it’s horrible track record of bad advice from its attorney and its consistently poor decision making rather than a blog.
JJ! Dat U?! Nice to see you and Mom, er... I mean Molly here. Did you move to Nottingham? I ask b/c you are referring to the concerned taxpayers of Nottingham.
So far my track record has been a lot better than yours when it comes to predicting the likely outcome of legal questions. I'm willing to bet that continues.
Who’s JJ? What is this crazy lawyer lady talking about?!?!?!
A big shot NY lawyer repeatedly attacking a small town blogger and accusing me of being someone named ‘JJ’ is concerning. Can we get a wellness check on Kamee please?
You sound certifiably insane.
..…‘Further, the board failed to abide by its own purchasing policy, which requires competitive sealed bidding for purchases over $10k.’
Nothing to see here fellow taxpayers of Nottingham, move along (according to Kamee, Doug Bates is the problem for pointing these things out).
Maybe that’s how things go in NY, but that nonsense isn’t tolerated around here Kamee.
This is her game. She gets off from it. Look at how she treats people like you said. Let's keep it to facts and not her fiction interpretation of legislature. She's 100% lawyer talk. Meant to wear you down repeating the same crap over and over again. We never needed a lawyer for a good three decades. All sudden the town is the most corrupt small town around. We've been here generations as have many local residents at and friends. The town bases it's spandages wants not needs. They want a new $424,000 tractor. They don't need one. Hell they don't even have anybody full-time that can operate one the way we used to when Johnny was around and Herb Smith..
Ever since the population has grown, do well over 5,000 people with liberals. Yes Massachusetts liberals moving in and wanting indoor playgrounds, sidewalks and everything else. There has been nothing but grievances ill will and incredibly high taxes $21. That's embarrassing. Meanwhile, we're building $1 million houses why to generate more money and d4s and young people as well as elderly out of town. Why? That is what wealthy people from Massachusetts want this town to be. It's very sad. The same corruption we've been seeing at the federal government is clearly filtered down as blank rolls down hill. So to say and the corruption as evident, the lawyers serve as a defense between the town and the townspeople that should ever happen situation for everybody once you get the money socking lawyers involved.. lawsuits are not good for the town. They're good for a lawyer's pocketbook. So the fact that Liz Cheney loves war is the same as lawyers. Love lawsuits doctors love surgery. It's very clear. The only thing that isn't clear is how we're going to get enough people in town aware of what's happening to squash this embarrassment that we now call Nottingham before it's gone forever
As a concerned citizen and a taxpayer of 40 years, I find it concerning that, you're actually bragging about having a better record when it comes to predicting likely outcomes of legal questions, then a town resident.
I would hope a lawyer might have a better" track record " than a concerned citizen and how you promise to continue.... further leads into wondering how corrupt you are; by promising, continuing wins.. Of course, they're all not the outcome the taxpayers would want.. choose your words carefully.. You sound very swampy... not someone I would want representing my concerns in the town and I'm sure everybody that will be reading this will agree!!
But, Doug, what is the difference between a Town Administrator and a Town Manager? Not sure a Manager has the same responsibility as an Administrator. Town Administrators make more money, right?
If I remember correctly, Town Administrators are not decision makers, they can make recommendations and should be guiding the board of selectmen, but they have no authority to act without BOS approval. Town Managers, on the other hand, do have decision making authority, but I don't remember the specifics of this authority.
We've all been reading about how much a disaster Ellen White has been. And even if half the reporting is inaccurate, the half that's true is amazing. The devil's in the details. People are too busy working raising kids to do all the reading necessary. That would bring the light exactly what disaster means. Thank God for Doug doing such work and people in the Nottingham social media. Yes a lot of it is negative but unfortunately this isn't something you put sprinkles on. These are people's harder and tax dollars being wasted. And the town is covering it out by deleting YouTube videos. Are you kidding me? When is there going to be accountability right down the line? Where is the petition to get Ellen White's resonation in hand.?.
Doug--thank you for doing that. I don't believe I was spreading a rumor but simply trying to confirm something. I too wrote to Ellen and received no response, which pretty well confirmed what I believed to be a fact. I heard/saw you ask the same question and as I said, believe the question has been answered.
Safety First, I'm just wondering if you've conducted a scientific study to be able to state with such certainty that "everybody in town everybody online agrees with Doug"? I'm just as certain that your claim is false.
It's not been my exerience that everyone agrees with me; however, it has been my experience that a lot of people only interact with people who agree with them. Thus, they are surprised to learn that there are people who think differently.
One thing that I'm repeatedly surprised about is how people mistakenly think that reports of the news are creations of the news. I'm not the one who complained about the decision. I'm just reporting that there have been complaints. I know that at least one complaint has been submitted in writing to the BOS. It's news, so I report it.
Speaking of a rumor that could be news...I didn't hear it until it was too late to check in with the Town. Have the Vilchocks sent a demand letter over their dismissal from the FD?
Jackson-Rafter is German for echo chamber.
Good one, Jaye!
Jaye who? Who are you saying I am?
I wish that people who post here would treat each other and our elected officials with more respect. Just because there are decisions and interpretations that we may not agree with doesn't mean something nefarious is going on. It's always a good rule of thumb to avoid attributing to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence. Regardless of whether the board acted illegally, no one brought the issue up at the time. I was in the room and it did not occur to me that anything was wrong.
Funds were the result of BOS failure to fulfilll legislative body clear mandate on emergency service manning for FY 2024.
(Evidenced by FY 2024 town budget approval.)
Clearily, TA White and BOS led by Morin did not comply with will of legislative body!
Chief Woodman circumvented the established Capital Improvement Planning process. What a better way than to reward for not following the Nottingham established process! These actions are typical of the Nottingham TA and BOS, i.e. do not follow established processes.
Finally, couldn't the surplus be applied to buy diwn tax rate? Every little crumb to Nottingham peasants would help. It was peasants money to begin with.
Nottingham government is a mini Washington DC, disgusting behavior. Officials guided by hubris is the norm.
Chief Woodman regularly is known to make her own executive decisions. Whether it's not following Nottingham Police department policy, knowingly allow towns workers to operate inebriated as she does our new dog catcher... Or using her powers to help circumvent purchases to her own benefit in illary guide to the poor towns people who could use a kickback.
More corruption in Nottingham? Who’d of thunk it?
How dare anyone ‘second guess’ elected officials.
Haha
Don’t you know your analysis ‘doesn’t matter’?
Haha
We’re all supposed to sit back and just assume our BoS is doing the right thing at all times, not to worry Kamee will surely sound the alarm when necessary.
Question nothing and continue to watch our town crumble because Kamee is here to save us from ourselves!
Ha!
This is absolutely insane.
Oh she's a lawyer. Didn't see that. What a surprise. Thank you for bringing that to light and when you call her out with fax look how unprofessional she sounds. This is how a lawyer would reply to you. JJ Dat .. like you said, clearly someone masquerading for the town. I thought it was some liberal whack but obviously it's worse. A lawyer that's clearly on the wrong side of the voting table...Ugh... Thank you for your post...
From the very beginning, your reply is 100% defensive and in favor of the town. Clearly you are not putting the townspayers first, you're just reciting legislature and using it to your advantage cause it of one of them. Clearly the town is doing things behind our backs as they always have and now they continue to double down. If you're going to go to bat for somebody, why don't you do it for the townspeople who clearly need somebody like you who could provide good recourse for these egregious things that have been done to us all
The only thing incoherent may be your ability to comprehend and not read between the lines.
There were no allegations of concealing anything... Stop your fear-mongering.. but you're a lawyer. You can't help yourself..
You incoherently misunderstood. It was mentioned for transparency-- Let's see the money all the lawyers ( clearly not you ,)..have made from NOTT taxpayers. because lawyers love lawsuits.
The town has already stated they want to sue one of the attorney firms for its mishandling in several instances.. Is that incoherent?.. 😂
So, can anyone confirm that the Vilchocks have or have not sent a demand letter to the Town over their dismissal from the FD?
I wrote the TA and got no answer. I then asked at the BOS meeting. The TA said that there was legal correspondence that the BOS had received and that is part of the board's sealed minutes and, therefore, is not subject to right-to-know.
I’d ask the Vilchocks or check with the town?
Or you could double back and ask the person who started the rumor where they got their info from?
Seems like those are the most logical steps at approaching the question.
Could even ask around social media, perhaps the Nottingham News and Information group?
Have you tried asking lawyer Kamee, she seems to think she knows everything.
Hopefully there’s some truth to that rumor you are spreading.
Speaking of a rumor that could be news...I didn't hear it until it was too late to check in with the Town. Have the Vilchocks sent a demand letter over their dismissal from the FD?
I've suspected ever since the Vilchocks were terminated that they would sue for defamation. Monday's BOS meeting should be interesting.
What is the link to Nottingham YouTube channel sir? Are all or any BOS meetings on YouTube for townspeople to review? Thank you
It sounds a little backwards to me. Wouldn't you post a demand letter before you have a judge's ruling that there was cause for termination?
There was already a judge's ruling that there was cause for termination.
The demand letter would presumably be about defamation. Demand letters are commonly sent before filing suit.
No, Doug. I pointed you to case law from the highest court in NH that conclusively states that your analysis does not matter. The legislature was clear that they did not want the Doug Bates of the world second-guessing and trying to undermine elected officials provided they did not increase the overall tax burden voters had explicity approved. (The distinction you highlight is immaterial as should be obvious by reading the rest of the case or the statute. The plain meaning of the statute doesn't change based on the circumstances or motivation that led to the decision to make transfers in money allocated between categories.)
If you believe the Town being sued is a bad thing, why do you work so hard to foment discontent and encourage lawsuits? Do you stand to benefit personally from the proceeds of any demand, lawsuit (or potential settlement therefrom) against the Town?
So, you think that because I reported that two citizens have complained about the legality of a BOS decision, I'm getting paid off as part of a conspiracy against the Town.
The answer is no, the BOS did not act illegally. Further answering, the BOS (or school board, if it is a school budget) can always decide to spend money differently than the categories put forth with the estimated budget expenses by transferring funds between budgeting accounts as long as it doesn't exceed the total amount appropriated and the amount wasn't raised via warrant article for a specific purpose (meaning that money appropriated pursuant to a warrant article authorizing an appropriation specifically to buy a tractor cannot instead be used for text books, for example). This is also why they are not required to spend money they budget for and don't end up needing - the budget process is based on estimates and any good budget has a cushion built in for unforseen expenses that may arise. In addition, as the RSA states, "neither the budget committee nor other citizens shall have any authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of the governing body in making such transfers."
RSA 32:10 ( "If changes arise during the year following the annual meeting that make it necessary to expend more than the amount appropriated for a specific purpose, the governing body may transfer to that appropriation an unexpended balance remaining in some other appropriation... ")
I'm fairly certain you know all of this, so once again, I am left wondering why you are trying to stir the pot and encourage people to sue the Town?
I do not think you are drawing an accurate inference from your reading of RSA 32:10. Here's the key portion of the text:
"If changes arise during the year following the annual meeting that make it necessary to expend more than the amount appropriated for a specific purpose, the governing body may transfer to that appropriation an unexpended balance remaining in some other appropriation...."
This text has three key criteria for transferring funds:
1. Did changes arise during the year? The answer is no.
2. Was the expenditure necessary? No - at least not in this time frame.
3. Were there existing appropriations in the budget for these purposes? Probably.
Therefore it would appear that 32:10 does not apply to this situation as the appropriation fails two of the three criteria.
Regarding this issue of your being fairly certain about my knowing something, what I know is that in journalism, one reports what happens. What happened here is that citizens are complaining about the actions of the BOS. Why do you find it objectionable for citizens to learn about their complaints?
I find it objectionable that you do not know what you are talking about but consistently act like you do, or intentionally omit information that does not suit your narrative, while also trying to encourage people to take harmful steps against the Town, which you then also complain about because even successful lawsuits where the Town is vindicated are in your view, a failure since they still cost money to defend against (apparently). This is not journalism; it is activism trying to masquerade as journalism, and contravenes even the most lax journalism standards.
Moreover, presenting a known or easily verified falsehood as an academic exercise or question to be answered may skirt defamation laws but IMO, it's still pretty transparent in terms of integrity.
Read the case law or stop being a make-believe lawyer/pot-stirrer. The Supreme Court of NH has rejected this exact argument because "a challenge to the exercise of transfer authority is inappropriate because RSA 32:10, I(b) expressly denies citizens the “authority to dispute or challenge the discretion of the governing body in making such transfers.” RSA 32:10, I(b)." A true journalist would have researched this as part of their due diligence and if they still felt compelled to report this nonsense, would at a minimum have included their report that "any citizen complaints regarding BOS decisions to reallocate budget funds are unlikely to prevail because...."
Yes, it is my opinion that getting the town sued is a bad thing. Only a lawyer would think that getting sued is a good thing. Normal people think it's bad.
I noticed you did not respond to my question, "Why do you find it objectionable for citizens to learn about their complaints?" I also noticed that you ignored the analysis of RSA 32:10 that substantiated the citizen complaints. You similarly ignored the issue about the town's purchasing policy. Before you accuse anyone of pursuing a narrative, you should consider how obvious it is that you are disregarding the issues in order to pursue a narrative.
I've read Sullivan v Hampton BOS which you quote in your latest comment but do not cite. The findings in that case appear to be about a different situation than what applies here. It's about adjustments between line items within a default operating budget; it's not about major capital expenditures that are normally presented to the legislative body for a decision.
Regarding your claim, "presenting a known or easily verified falsehood as an academic exercise or question to be answered may skirt defamation laws but IMO, it's still pretty transparent in terms of integrity," you are just substituting your opinion about a contentious issue as something that is "known or easily verified." It's not known. What is known is that citizens have a right to complain about the actions of their government and they have a right to make those complaints known. There's no caveat in there about Kamee having to agree with their opinions.
Honestly, listening to your liberal way of talking sounds very suspicious. You're clearly acting out against the most intelligent person who regularly and consistently gives people facts spends hours and hours a day doing so. Why don't you stop doubling down on your double Jeopardy bologna you're putting down. Because everybody in town everybody online agrees with Doug. Please post your comments on social media and let's see how they go over. Thank you
It's really simple lady. You've been smoking mirrors in a dog and pony show for the town since the beginning. Your attacks are purposely. Copying pasting rsas and interjecting your personal jealousy of how thoroughly Doug does his job. There's a reason why people are complaining. There's a reason why people like you are getting called out. And it's only growing and your reaction only serves to enlighten people like myself and others reading these threads that you are clear taking a 100% defensive standpoint as would be a typical lawyer. Instead of asking Doug, if he's making a kickback, why don't you post your paychecks from the town and be transparent? Then we really be enlightened. Of course it's people's business. Our taxpayers pay your salary. We should know everything and all you doing is delay and deposing typical lawyer talk.
This comment is somewhat incoherent, but the allegations that I am somehow concealing a paid relationship and acting to harm Nottingham's taxpayers are clear. As I am sure Doug can confirm for you, if the Town was paying me for work in any capacity, that compensation would be a matter of public record. There is no need for your baseless character attacks on me as a professional, premised on false information concerning my work, when you can easily confirm that I am not working on behalf of the Town by making a simple request for information to the Town. Kindly do your homework before attacking me professionally.
To the best of my knowledge, Kamee Verdrager has never received any compensation from the town of Nottingham. I don't think her name has appeared as a vendor in any Town Report.
Yes, I understand. It was an incoherent misunderstanding. We were referencing obviously town lawyers
Reporting on the questionable behavior of our notoriously dishonest board of selectmen and town administrator is now considered ‘stirring the pot’?
Ha!
Got it Kamee.
Just another loud mouthed know it all attorney shouting down the messenger and the concerned taxpayers of Nottingham.
It’s a good thing we have a citizen journalist and other common folk keeping a close eye on our untrustworthy town govt and their reckless spending.
Also, love how Kamee the lawyer purposely ignores this..…‘Further, the board failed to abide by its own purchasing policy, which requires competitive sealed bidding for purchases over $10k.’
I am fairly certain she saw this and chose to ignore it, which once again left me questioning her intellectual integrity, encouraging people to look the other way from the obvious misconduct by the board of selectmen.
I am also fairly certain the town getting sued has more to do with it’s horrible track record of bad advice from its attorney and its consistently poor decision making rather than a blog.
JJ! Dat U?! Nice to see you and Mom, er... I mean Molly here. Did you move to Nottingham? I ask b/c you are referring to the concerned taxpayers of Nottingham.
So far my track record has been a lot better than yours when it comes to predicting the likely outcome of legal questions. I'm willing to bet that continues.
Who’s JJ? What is this crazy lawyer lady talking about?!?!?!
A big shot NY lawyer repeatedly attacking a small town blogger and accusing me of being someone named ‘JJ’ is concerning. Can we get a wellness check on Kamee please?
You sound certifiably insane.
..…‘Further, the board failed to abide by its own purchasing policy, which requires competitive sealed bidding for purchases over $10k.’
Nothing to see here fellow taxpayers of Nottingham, move along (according to Kamee, Doug Bates is the problem for pointing these things out).
Maybe that’s how things go in NY, but that nonsense isn’t tolerated around here Kamee.
This is her game. She gets off from it. Look at how she treats people like you said. Let's keep it to facts and not her fiction interpretation of legislature. She's 100% lawyer talk. Meant to wear you down repeating the same crap over and over again. We never needed a lawyer for a good three decades. All sudden the town is the most corrupt small town around. We've been here generations as have many local residents at and friends. The town bases it's spandages wants not needs. They want a new $424,000 tractor. They don't need one. Hell they don't even have anybody full-time that can operate one the way we used to when Johnny was around and Herb Smith..
Ever since the population has grown, do well over 5,000 people with liberals. Yes Massachusetts liberals moving in and wanting indoor playgrounds, sidewalks and everything else. There has been nothing but grievances ill will and incredibly high taxes $21. That's embarrassing. Meanwhile, we're building $1 million houses why to generate more money and d4s and young people as well as elderly out of town. Why? That is what wealthy people from Massachusetts want this town to be. It's very sad. The same corruption we've been seeing at the federal government is clearly filtered down as blank rolls down hill. So to say and the corruption as evident, the lawyers serve as a defense between the town and the townspeople that should ever happen situation for everybody once you get the money socking lawyers involved.. lawsuits are not good for the town. They're good for a lawyer's pocketbook. So the fact that Liz Cheney loves war is the same as lawyers. Love lawsuits doctors love surgery. It's very clear. The only thing that isn't clear is how we're going to get enough people in town aware of what's happening to squash this embarrassment that we now call Nottingham before it's gone forever
As a concerned citizen and a taxpayer of 40 years, I find it concerning that, you're actually bragging about having a better record when it comes to predicting likely outcomes of legal questions, then a town resident.
I would hope a lawyer might have a better" track record " than a concerned citizen and how you promise to continue.... further leads into wondering how corrupt you are; by promising, continuing wins.. Of course, they're all not the outcome the taxpayers would want.. choose your words carefully.. You sound very swampy... not someone I would want representing my concerns in the town and I'm sure everybody that will be reading this will agree!!
But, Doug, what is the difference between a Town Administrator and a Town Manager? Not sure a Manager has the same responsibility as an Administrator. Town Administrators make more money, right?
Typically Town Managers have a greater level of authority delegated to them by the BOS than Town Administrators do.
If I remember correctly, Town Administrators are not decision makers, they can make recommendations and should be guiding the board of selectmen, but they have no authority to act without BOS approval. Town Managers, on the other hand, do have decision making authority, but I don't remember the specifics of this authority.
Town administrator or town manager, call her what you want, bottom line is Ellen White has been a disaster.
We've all been reading about how much a disaster Ellen White has been. And even if half the reporting is inaccurate, the half that's true is amazing. The devil's in the details. People are too busy working raising kids to do all the reading necessary. That would bring the light exactly what disaster means. Thank God for Doug doing such work and people in the Nottingham social media. Yes a lot of it is negative but unfortunately this isn't something you put sprinkles on. These are people's harder and tax dollars being wasted. And the town is covering it out by deleting YouTube videos. Are you kidding me? When is there going to be accountability right down the line? Where is the petition to get Ellen White's resonation in hand.?.