State Rep. Aylward, Wow! What a Day in Concord, and Beyond. . .

Lighten Up!

Did you hear the one about the hitchhiker? He got picked up by a guy, who, for miles and miles just stared straight ahead, and had nothing to say. So the hitchhiker, trying to make conversation, asked "Aren’t you afraid of picking up a serial killer?” The guy kept staring straight ahead and responded "Nah, the odds of there being two serial killers in a single vehicle are astronomical. . . "

TAXPAYERS DODGED A HUGE BULLET IN DANBURY!
Investigating the “State of (Phantom) Crime" in Danbury

Folks, requesting records that showed a breakdown of “Calls for Service” and “Arrests/Bookings' for the Town of Danbury Police Department for 2024, a total of 551 were reported. Of those, there were:

NO Felonies, and ONLY a total of SEVEN (7) misdemeanors

The HIGHEST number of calls are:

(21) Animal complaints and (23) Citizen Request Assistance; (44) House Check;, (23) Police Information and (23) for Sexual Offender Registration (that I believe would be considered ‘administrative duties', not ‘Calls for Service” per se.)

Of the 551 total calls, approximately 185 are what I would personally consider to be non-criminal complaints, and most likely administrative in nature, such as cruiser maintenance (10), PR Talk-Lecture (5) Chief meeting (15); Administration (6); courtesy ride (2); training (7); message delivery (2); equipment maintenance (3); concealed weapons permits (25); case follow-up (26); parade/community event (2); police information-Intelligence (7); VIN Inspection (15); background check requests (3); Admin (6). . .

The LEAST amount of calls were: (2) Sexual Assault; (1) Stalking; (1) Harassment (6) Burglary: (8) theft (1) Assault?Battery (2) Fraud; (3) Criminal Mischief; (2) Domestic Dispute (1) Weapons Violations (5) Neighborhood Disputes; (12) Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Incident (7) Suspicious Person, for example.

So as not to give the impression that Danbury is ‘crime ridden’, I believe the police department owes citizens the utmost of transparency.

Perhaps the TRUE number of ‘Calls for Service’ the department handled was more like, and should have been reported as around 366? That would amount to one call per day. And most certainly, zero felonies and low number of misdemeanors, should have, at the very least, been reported, and as do most towns publishing monthly police logs, which the Town of Danbury PD, does not. I would be remiss if not informing readers that the Sheriff’s Office and the State Police also report “Calls for Service” and “Arrest Booking’ totals, the request for these records not yet made.

So let me ask: Were voters being asked to fund an expensive, proposed ‘police palace’ for zero felony arrests and only seven misdemeanors reported in a single year? Were voters deceived by the total ‘549 calls for service’ reported by the department in the 2024 Town Annual Report, when almost 200 calls appear to be administrative in nature?

I can see why Chief Kelby did NOT want citizens to see a breakdown published in the Annual Report that reflects ONLY 7 misdemeanors and NO felonies, especially after helping to design the proposed ‘police palace’. These numbers reflect NO NEED for other than the police department space already existing, that has served chiefs, officers, and administrators well over decades. My goodness! The Chief wanted a ’sally port’ and ‘jail cells’ for only 7 misdemeanor arrests??? Did the Selectmen or the Budget Committee request a breakdown of calls, arrests, and bookings before making their decision to ‘recommend’? And why did Chief Kelby announce he was quitting just days before voting day? Did he see the writing on the wall?

A "FOREVER" Safety Services Committee?

RETURN THE MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS!!!

And just WHEN will this ’Safety Services Committee’ become dissolved by the Selectmen, and the balance of the 50K appropriated for the feasibility study be returned to taxpayers in the form of a refund, for tax relief? The fund balance has no other purpose, and taxpayers, to my knowledge, did not authorize a ‘forever’ safety services committee, or other use of the balance of the appropriated amount.

Did not the committee already fulfill its function of having a feasibility study, etc., accomplished? And should not the committee become disbanded after voters loudly said “No means No!” to the two, multi-million dollar proposals that failed miserably?

I’d hate to see allegations of “fiduciary malpractice’ waged against the Selectmen if not immediately addressing the existence of the fund balance, and if failing, or neglecting to take action to return the money to the taxpayers — where it belongs! This should absolutely be done by the board’s own fruition. It should not take a citizen having to request such action.

From Investopedia.com

No Inventory of Town-Owned Assets?

Speaking of transparency, a while back I sent a public record request to Chief Martin asking for an ‘inventory’ of Town assets in the Fire Department’s possession, such as an account of the number, type of vehicles, equipment, computers, etc. No inventory was produced.

The Fire Department is funded by taxpayer dollars, various grants, and according to the Chief, there are no public donations to report. The department keeps asking for more and more taxpayer dollars to purchase such types of assets, but we don’t know what is already owned, leased or otherwise acquired, how many of each type, their age, condition, what if any maintenance or repair, etc. Taxpayers are entitled to know what Town assets are in the department’s possession, so why is the Fire Department operating in relative secrecy?

I believe ALL Town Departments should have an inventory of town-owned assets in these departments' possession, otherwise, how does the budget committee know if additional funds requested are reasonable and necessary?

By What Authority Are We Doing This?

This is the fundamental question public officials must ask and answer before taking any official action. If the answer is ‘We don’t know. . .’ then they have a duty to find out! Apparently, such was not the case in the matter of the Town of Danbury Planning Board when they devised and engaged in a phantom regulatory scheme beginning in late 2023, which set off a chain of disturbing events that ultimately, and unfortunately cost Danbury taxpayers thousands and thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees.

The Chairman of the Planning Board is John A. Taylor, who is responsible for assuring the board upholds and operates within the confines of state law -- and was the central actor in the scheme. There being no statute, nor planning board regulation (i.e. Rules of Procedure) allowing such a scheme, what is the recourse for Taylor's alleged, bad-actor conduct?

RSA 673:13, Removal of Members, II. allows the Selectmen to remove a land use board member, for ‘malfeasance in office’, ’neglect of duty’, or ‘inefficiency’ after a public hearing. Therefore, a ‘Petition for the Removal of Land Use Board Member, John A. Taylor’ alleging numerous accounts of ‘malfeasance in office’ and ‘neglect of duty’ has been submitted to the Selectmen for consideration by Deborah Aylward, a Danbury resident, along with allegations of conduct which may meet the elements of one or more criminal statutes.

The petition was not undertaken lightly, and after witnessing for herself the conduct described therein at public hearings; plowing through almost a ream-and-a-half worth of documentation; it took almost a year and a half from start to finish.

The petition is the stuff of which headlines are made, and may very well spark legislative change. Planning boards that do not ‘operate by the book’, and mess with citizens’ property rights (for whatever reason) must be held accountable, but sadly, some applicants cannot afford to appeal questionable decisions which likely require the services of a reputable land use attorney -- at great expense.

This particular case in Danbury, unfortunately, is not a one-off situation. As a state representative, Aylward's heard anecdotal accounts from other representatives living in cities/towns having land use board members who engage in acts of intimidation; are known to disrespect applicants in public forums, and deny applications against all reason, all while pushing hidden, or overt personal or political agendas — with no consequence.

Kudos to those cities/towns having land use board members who hold themselves to the highest of standards; check and re-check statute; terms of zoning and other ordinances, case law, and board rules of procedure before taking official action, to avoid unnecessary and costly appeals. These board members would never dream of acting in any way to cause allegations of impropriety.

Unfortunately, especially in smaller towns, and whether appointed or elected, there are land use board members having no experience in planning or zoning populating land use boards. There are also the too-long serving members who skirt the law, with less experienced and rarely knowledgeable other members not knowing the difference; who do not self-educate; participate in training, and just go along for the ride to applicants' detriment, especially if casting the deciding vote in the negative.

If elected, it is said that the ‘cure’ for cancers permeating these boards is: Vote them out! However, positions can carry a three-year term, which can be a rather long time to wait to unseat an undesirable member. And especially in smaller towns, many times individuals run unopposed due to lack of skilled talent, or if experienced, simply don’t have the time to devote, nor interest. Such is the state of ‘local control’ in those towns.

New Hampshire is not a Home Rule state, so there are no re-call elections. However, the legislature, in its wisdom, created a statute that addresses ‘removal of land use board members’ (RSA 643:13, II) which is a statute about which citizens need to be aware, because unfortunately, if is oftentimes up to citizen sleuths to expose public official’s wrongdoing. Take the case of the Town of Webster's former treasurer who was convicted of an illegal act after average citizens took it upon themselves to bring the matter to proper authorities.

Who Is Jonah Wheeler?

He’s a 22-year old African American man who represents Peterborough, NH., a Democrat, and true statesman. Standing well over 6 feet tall and ramrod straight, always wearing his best suit and tie, when he stands up to speak before the full House of Representatives — people listen.

That is, except for on March 20th, when upon taking to the podium to give a floor speech on HB 148, to advocate for women's safety and privacy in private spaces, almost half of the occupants of the ‘other side’ of the chamber left! Unable to give Rep. Wheeler the courtesy of their undivided attention during floor debate, Democrats noisily left the chamber in droves. And when finished with his eloquent speech, a person (gender unknown) standing in the gallery, angrily shouted at the remaining representatives below. Last term, when taking a stance opposite that of his party’s, Rep. Wheeler was physically accosted by one of his own kind in the sacred house chamber. Tsk, tsk.

I met Jonah when both of us were freshman. He was immediately likable. Recognizing that he was well up and over the learning curve, I was very attentive to his reasonable opinions. Whenever I see him, I give him a great big hug. Taking a stance on HB 148, with Wheeler voting in favor, and as reported in the Daily Bulletin; the bill allows businesses and government agencies to separate bathrooms, locker rooms, prisons, and other facilities based on biological sex at birth, undoing portions of a gender identity rights bill passed in 2018. The bill ‘enables’ separate, private spaces, it does not ‘require’ the same. Rep. Wheeler apparently bucked the Democrat's status quo, and for which, he is getting a lot of media, and other, unwelcome attention. Furthermore, fellow Democrat Peter Leishman of Peterborough, also voted in support of the bill.

Subsequently attending a ‘listening session’ hosted by the League of Women’s Voters (LWV) in his hometown on March 25th (not attended by Leishman), from media reports it appears Rep. Wheeler was verbally accosted by an angry mob of left-leaning attendees. Apparently, the conduct was not controlled by the LWV moderator. The Bulletin reports that during which, Rep. Wheeler stated: "I did represent my constituents, because there were women in this town who told me that they don’t feel safe in their spaces anymore.”

I’ve always suspected that the LWV (which is a non-profit organization) is partisan, and after this spectacle, my suspicions are confirmed. Therefore, I’ve decided to decline any invitations to attend events hosted by the LWV, or any others suspected as organized by Democrats under the guise of any non-profit org.

Deborah Aylward is a resident of Danbury, NH, a state law-maker, and citizen activist.