More Outrageous Behavior in New Hartford Part 2

This blogger also heard what NH Online reported earlier today: that the NH Town Clerk is planning another recount of the voting on the Town's Bonding proposals. But the story this blogger heard is that the election inspectors will be called together to conduct this re canvas. If they had participated in the previous recount, then why call them back to do it again? Is this an attempt to "validate" results that have not been validated -- i.e., the reported recount results? Does this not suggest that the inspectors did not participate in the recounts reported upon last week? And if the inspectors did not participate in the recounts, then does that not leave the tally as announced the day after the election as the only true and valid vote count (which defeated the storm water bond proposal)? And if the election result from the day after the vote is the only true and valid vote count, then did not the Town Clerk lie to both the public and potential investors when she announced to the public in the Legal Notice of Estoppel that:

"Such resolution was duly approved by a majority of the qualified voters of said Town voting at the special Town election duly called, held and conducted on March 29, 2007." ? (emphasis supplied)

If such is the case, then one would hope that the Town Clerk has good personal legal representation (i.e., not at taxpayer expense) since knowingly announcing something that is untrue would seem to be beyond her official duties . . . . Perhaps the estoppel notice should be rescinded.

Interestingly, if the bonding was defeated as originally reported, but no one challenges what the Town is doing in court, the bonding will still go through, according to the estoppel notice. Doesn't that make the truth irrelevant? Is this how we want our government to operate?

The public has no way of verifying what the Town Clerk has alleged since she has refused to disclose the certified voting results to the several individuals who have requested same. However, we do know that she has the results, and we do know that she refuses to give the public access. When an individual controls an important piece of evidence, but fails to disclose it, the trier of fact (here, the "Court of Public Opinion") is entitled to draw an inference against that individual. Here, the inference may be drawn that the results are contrary to what the Town Clerk has publicly announced . . . and other inferences may flow from that.

It is our understanding that the District Attorney has taken an interest in this matter. Hopefully a thorough investigation will ensue. We will look forward to finding out what has really happened.