I'm not sure that "censure" is the proper word. Do clients ("the town") properly "censure" their attorneys or is that more appropriate to the courts or bar association? Would rather see the board "directed" to employ another law firm.
I'm told that Upton Hatfield is very slow to respond to requests/inquiries/questions from the town - lack of professional customer service (my words).
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I want to thank you, Doug, for initiating a much-needed service for the town and its citizens. Let us hope that some BOS members might be in attendance and listen. Kudos also to the church for opening its doors.
The event tonight is just a drop-by, talk one-on-on, sign one or more petitions, then leave event. It's not a sit-down meeting.
Re Upton & Hatfield, the Board of Selectmen has already decided to replace Upton & Hatfield as Town Attorney. They just haven't settled on which firm to replace them with.
Rather than firing Upton & Hatfield outright for its poor performance, the BOS took pains in its RFP to say “The Town’s RFP is not to be taken as a sign of dissatisfaction with its current vendor, but as part of its regular review of vendors." However, it subsequently discussed in a meeting its dissatisfaction with Upton & Hatfield's responsiveness. I infer that this is associated with BOS's being unable to open Town Beach on time.
The problems with Upton & Hatfield extend far beyond this. They really deserved to be fired outright, and in a well-publicized fashion. Other towns use U&H too. They need to be made aware of the situation. I happen to be aware of the problems U&H has caused in Nashua. Laurie Ortolano won a free speech award in 2023 in recognition of her efforts to fight Nashua's (U&H's) abuses.
Here's a list of reasons to censure U&H:
* U&H caused delays that prevented Town Beach from being opened on time.
* U&H failed to recognize that no investigation of the Fire Chief was needed. The BOS had the authority to decline to re-appoint the Chief. Using this method would have also prevented the Chief from taking the town to court to get his job back.
* U&H falsely claimed in court that the Chief was a "holdover" appointee. No one believed that. The town's own witnesses refuted it.
* U&H erroneously put into the termination letter for the Chief reasons that the investigation made no findings on.
* U&H spent over $5k of taxpayers' money to try to prevent a confidential, impartial, third-party review of U&H's own redactions.
* U&H denied a citizen (me) their right to put forward a motion at the deliberative session, contrary to the law about Town Meetings.
* U&H filed motions to prevent the camp roads lawsuit from coming to court contrary to the BOS's stated preference that the suit go to court promptly.
* U&H appears to have failed to properly inform the BOS that its actions that caused the camp roads lawsuit were illegal, and that its chances of prevailing in court were small.
* U&H failed to inform voters that the town's chemical trespass ordinance was likely illegal.
* Three times in just 5 years the town has been sued by its own citizens for legal decisions apparently promoted by U&H.
* Nottingham spends far more on legal fees than is typical of a NH town our size.
" 'Censure' town's law firm"
I'm not sure that "censure" is the proper word. Do clients ("the town") properly "censure" their attorneys or is that more appropriate to the courts or bar association? Would rather see the board "directed" to employ another law firm.
I'm told that Upton Hatfield is very slow to respond to requests/inquiries/questions from the town - lack of professional customer service (my words).
I am unable to attend tonight's meeting, but I want to thank you, Doug, for initiating a much-needed service for the town and its citizens. Let us hope that some BOS members might be in attendance and listen. Kudos also to the church for opening its doors.
The event tonight is just a drop-by, talk one-on-on, sign one or more petitions, then leave event. It's not a sit-down meeting.
Re Upton & Hatfield, the Board of Selectmen has already decided to replace Upton & Hatfield as Town Attorney. They just haven't settled on which firm to replace them with.
Rather than firing Upton & Hatfield outright for its poor performance, the BOS took pains in its RFP to say “The Town’s RFP is not to be taken as a sign of dissatisfaction with its current vendor, but as part of its regular review of vendors." However, it subsequently discussed in a meeting its dissatisfaction with Upton & Hatfield's responsiveness. I infer that this is associated with BOS's being unable to open Town Beach on time.
The problems with Upton & Hatfield extend far beyond this. They really deserved to be fired outright, and in a well-publicized fashion. Other towns use U&H too. They need to be made aware of the situation. I happen to be aware of the problems U&H has caused in Nashua. Laurie Ortolano won a free speech award in 2023 in recognition of her efforts to fight Nashua's (U&H's) abuses.
Here's a list of reasons to censure U&H:
* U&H caused delays that prevented Town Beach from being opened on time.
* U&H failed to recognize that no investigation of the Fire Chief was needed. The BOS had the authority to decline to re-appoint the Chief. Using this method would have also prevented the Chief from taking the town to court to get his job back.
* U&H falsely claimed in court that the Chief was a "holdover" appointee. No one believed that. The town's own witnesses refuted it.
* U&H erroneously put into the termination letter for the Chief reasons that the investigation made no findings on.
* U&H spent over $5k of taxpayers' money to try to prevent a confidential, impartial, third-party review of U&H's own redactions.
* U&H denied a citizen (me) their right to put forward a motion at the deliberative session, contrary to the law about Town Meetings.
* U&H filed motions to prevent the camp roads lawsuit from coming to court contrary to the BOS's stated preference that the suit go to court promptly.
* U&H appears to have failed to properly inform the BOS that its actions that caused the camp roads lawsuit were illegal, and that its chances of prevailing in court were small.
* U&H failed to inform voters that the town's chemical trespass ordinance was likely illegal.
* Three times in just 5 years the town has been sued by its own citizens for legal decisions apparently promoted by U&H.
* Nottingham spends far more on legal fees than is typical of a NH town our size.