GilfordGrok

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

SECOND SESSION

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 8: Are you in favor of adopting an amendment to the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as submitted by petition to repeal involuntary mergers of contiguous non-conforming lots in common ownership and allow lots involuntarily merged by the municipality to be unmerged and considered lots of record subject to all other aspects of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances by deleting language from Section 9.1, adding new language to Section 9.1 and deleting Section 9.1.1 in its entirety? (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.) (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

I seconded this motion when it became apparent that no one on the dias was going to do so. 

This petition was put forth by Barbara Aichinger who is in the middle of such a "taking by administrative fiat" by the town.  Just as with the attempted "Nix Knockout of the Ames Farm" amendment is effectively using the force of Government in the taking of the value of Private Property (a Right under the Constitution, one of the bedrock philosophical pillars of this representative Republic), so is the action of the Town on its own decision.

In these cases, I believe the right thing to do is to have the input of the landowner whose Private Property value may be affected be part of that decision making process.  Although the Town should have the ability to approach the landowner concerning the matter, the ultimate decision should be that of the landowner.

After all, it is not the Town's land nor should it solely be the Town's decision to make (or even the "majority" part of the decision).

I URGE you to vote YES on Article 8

I would not want to be in the same situation, of having the Town determine how my personal property.  If it would cost more in tax monies, so be it.  Even if the size or makeup of the lot would be such that it would have to remain undeveloped, so bit it.  The decision would be mine - or, yours.

Barbara Aichinger (who has started  www.NHPropertyRights.com) sent along a couple of documents - see after the jump.

Continue reading "Warrant Articles - 2010 - Town - Part 2 - The Zoning issues (Article X)" »

Posted by Skip at 10:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

...

ARTICLE 3: Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment Number 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows: Amend Section 6.20, which requires provision of a water supply suitable for fire protection purposes for all new Multi-Family developments, Planned Unit developments, Cluster Housing projects, and Manufactured Housing Parks, and for all Single-Family subdivisions of six (6) lots or more, to allow only use of municipal water supplies, cisterns, or sprinkler systems to satisfy this requirement, and to no longer allow surface water supplies to satisfy this requirement unless they are natural water bodies and approved for such use by the Fire Department, and to make other related changes? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

...

ARTICLE 11: Are you in favor of adopting a revised Fire Prevention Code as proposed by the Gilford Fire Engineers and recommended by the Gilford Planning Board, whereby the current Fire Prevention Code will be repealed and the revised Fire Prevention Code will reference more recent editions of National Fire Protection Association codes as adopted and amended within the State Fire Code; and furthermore, to add provisions for the creation of a Town of Gilford Fire Code Handbook, requirements for the installation of fire alarm systems, revisions to the system of fines for false alarms, establishment of standards for non-residential sprinkler suppression systems, provisions for access to fire alarm systems and establishes general fire safety requirements along with a system of permits, fees and penalties? (An official copy of the entire proposal is on file at the Town Clerk’s Office and on display at the meeting place on the date of the Town Meetings and may be viewed at www.gilfordnh.org.)

Both of these articles speak to a revamping of fire / safety codes here in Town. When they are read quickly, the first impression is "sure, who can be against more safety"?  Who can be against the idea of more fire alarms, more tools against the loss of life?

Well, my first reaction over the last few years has grown to almost always to:

• And the cost / benefit to this proposal?
• Is this a case of incrementally relinquishing of our freedom?
  

Now, I'm not a planning maven nor a fire expert.  However, I did ask Mr. Ayers the question as to the cost of Article 3 to future development:

approximately $50,000 for a such a cistern.

Thus, for a housing development of just 5 homes, it is an additional cost of $10K / per.  This, just on a simple basis, effectively eliminates the standard family home at around $250,000 cost and may have the unintended (intended?) push to slant future development to much bigger homes - effectively shoving Gilford towards a future where our sons and daughters of median incomes might not be able to build for themselves in the town in which they now reside.  It also will effectively raise the cost of "Work Force" housing as well.

Or force a clamor for an extension of the town water system in order to build. Or, this could shut down development altogether - which might suit some in town just dandy.

I also ask folks to reread what was written in the Jan. 14 version of the Gilford Steamer (Pg. A2) where Chief Hays was interviewed about this change in the fire code:

Although the overall document has not significantly changed, fire alarm system codes have been updated, as well as a section dealing with outside cooking devices and gas grills. Hayes added that some sections have been rewritten solely for clarification purposes before being resubmitted this year.

“It prohibits the use on any exterior deck on a multifamily dwelling (such as a condominium). You can’t have a gas grill on a deck anymore,” said Hayes.

Any multi-family dwellings, new or substantially renovated units, either/ or consisting of four units or three stories or more, will now require sprinkler systems, regardless of the height or width of the building, said Hayes. Although an increased risk of fires are probable in multiunit dwellings with outside kitchen appliances, Hayes said part of the fire code prevention change has to do with the department’s abilities as well.

“It is really a matter of the size and capability of our fire department. It puts all occupants at risk. It is larger than what we are capable of looking at, and gives us a better chance to control the fire,” said Hayes.

I had to reread this a couple of times; each time I came up with the same conclusion.  Even though I like Chief Hayes (and thank him for his years of service to the Town and wish him an excellent retirement), I am aghast at the assumption:

Because the Fire Department cannot handle a given situation because of a lacking on its part, we must make the act of simply cooking hot dogs, hamburgers, steaks, and the like, illegal. With that statement, my take away is that because the Fire Department is unable to assure the safety of a home's residents, the use of the Property Owner of his or her cooking a meal is denied?

Doesn't this totally shift the responsibility from the homeowner for an adverse outcome to the State (give me a moment for waxing a bit philosophical here)?  Isn't this restricting the freedom of an individual to do what is otherwise legal activity?  This is not Boston where there are streets upon streets of three-deckers effectively rubbing siding on siding here, where an ignition could literally take out a block of houses or more.

A more philosophical question: Does the Chief believe like many Statists, that the responsibility for the safety of its citizens resides solely with the State and not with individual responsibility of its citizens?

And do we wish to cede more control over our lives to Government and limit freedom? Cooking the family's steak on the deck may sound like a rather puny dispute, but when does it stop?  

I may sound like I am going stark raving mad, and there are certainly those that already believe that, but I ask you to think this through - do not revert to what sounds good at the moment but instead, consider the basic philosophical tenets of our society at its founding (that is, if you can truly remember or if you received that education in the beginning) - who is really responsible for you?

I urge you to vote NO on both Articles 3 and 11.

Posted by Skip at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT
To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

The question is, what is the boundary between controlling the character of the town and the Right to Private Property?  And this year, which are those that are:

• Concerned with defining the character of the town?
• Concerned with safety issues
• Concerned with safety issues but have, in my opinion, crossed that line of the "common good" vs the individual Right to Private Property?
• Simply using the the coercive force of Government to destroy someone else's Right to Private Property (and the value thereof) so as to facilitate their own well being the value of their Private Property (AKA - the Stephen Nix vs Ames Farm Warrant)?
  

And yes, this is the Article that I stood up in opposition to at the Deliberative Session (the FIRST SESSION, above), that in my belief, is yet more "legalfare (e.g., legal warfare) leveled by Mr. Nix against the Ames's. Let me address this Article first.

Mr. "no boats for you" Nix, from my viewpoint, would like nothing more than for the Ames Farm to go defunct.  Frankly, his cause is just about the same as the person who JUST moves into either the flight path of the Laconia Municipal Airport (just gotta love that name...given that is located in Gilford) or right near it complaining about the noise.

Er, who was there first (and Ames has been operating for 120 years), Mr. Nix?  And to me, that is a fundamental issue.  He moved to his present residence well after the establishment of the business which, by most accounts, has been a positive venue for tourists in Gilford.

I'd be willing to bet, if his home was on the other side of town near Meadowbrook, he'd be complaining there too (er, still).

In my opinion, this is nothing more than a lawyer than can freely throw up obstacle after complaint after lawsuit after lament (you get the idea) and try to spend / annoy / limit / deny the rightful owners of their Right to the free use of their Private Property strictly for his benefit.

What was important was the question that I asked of John Ayers, Director of Planning and Land Use department: "Would this article, in your professional opinion,  adversely impact the operations at the Ames Farm?"

His answer: Yes

This is NOT, it seems, about the character of the town - it is all about what Steve Nix wants and will not stop until his wants are met.  There's a word that describes that kind of behavior....

I URGE you to vote no on Article 9

After all, what would YOU do if a lawyer or developer felt that his needs came before yours, and he is a "Johnny-come-lately" to the neighborhood?

(cross posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 02:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

2010 ANNUAL TOWN MEETING WARRANT

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in Town affairs:

You are hereby notified to meet for the First Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford High School Auditorium, in said Town of Gilford, on Wednesday, February 3, beginning at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The First Session will consist of explanation, discussion and debate on each of the following warrant articles; and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article to the extent prescribed under the laws of the State of New Hampshire.

You are hereby notified to meet for the Second Session of the 2010 Annual Town Meeting, to be held in the Gilford Middle School Gymnasium, in said Town of Gilford, on Tuesday, March 9, beginning at seven o’clock in the morning (7:00 a.m.) until the closing of the polls at seven o’clock in the evening (7:00 p.m.). The Second Session will consist of voting by official ballot to elect Town Officers and voting by official ballot on all warrant articles from the First Session, as may be amended, as follows:

ARTICLE 1: To choose the necessary Town Officers for the following year; to wit:

One Selectman for a 3 year term
One Moderator for a 2 year term
One Trustee of Trust Funds for a 3 year term
Two Library Trustees for 3 year terms
Three Budget Committee Members for 3 year terms
One Fire Engineer for a 3 year term
One Cemetery Trustee for a 3 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 6 year term
One Supervisor of the Checklist for a 2 year term

Posted by Skip at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Game on!

At this time, the run for the elections is on.  Selectmen, Budget Committee, School Board, Library Trustees, Planning; those that have decided that they have a reason to serve, that they have an ability that can be helpful to the Town, that they have something to GIVE (versus that hated phrase "give back" - which is utter nonsense unless one believes that the "community" is totally responsible for one's life and success) have signed up and will be making their pitches for the titles / positions.

I'm quite sure that the Steamer will be making its recommendations; GilfordGrok will be making its recommendations as well.  

Certainly, the Gilford fire fighters have made their recommendation:

In a unanimous vote, Gilford Professional Firefighters has voted to endorse incumbent Selectman Gus Benavides to a second term as Selectman. President Scott Mooney said “we have looked at Gus’s voting record for the past three years and Gus has supported the Fire Department when we needed it”. The thing with Gus is he does not just approve or disapprove an issue without knowing all the facts. And that’s all we want is our officials to make informed decisions, Mooney said. Benavides requested a meeting with the Firefighters to ask for their endorsement and discuss some of the issues. “We had a very productive meeting with Gus and discussed many issue that will arise in the next three years, Gus promised an open line of communication with the Selectman’s office, and possible a town employees working group to help research the health care issues”. Gilford Professional Firefighters endorsed Benavides three years ago for his first term in office.

Hmm, one has to ask the question: a union endorsing a conservative?  While it is true that I am considered (and self-admitted) to be quite Conservative, I think that Gus is to be viewed as the more conservative person in the race (the three: Gus, Margo Weeks who is leaving the position of Chair of the School Board, and perennial runner Joe Hoffman).

Posted by Skip at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Town meeting time here in NH brings the political musical chair(s) time as well.  Here's the list of the players for the contested positions:

Board of Selectmen:

• Gus Benevides (current Chair)
• Joe Hoffman
• Margo Weeks (current Chair of the School Board)
  

Moderator:

• Dennis Corrigan
• Joe Hoffman
• Sandra McGonagle

Budget Committee:

• Mark Correy (incumbent)
  
• Dale Dormody (incumbent)
• Dale "Chan" Eddy
• Dave Horvath
• Philip "Pat" LaBonte

Library Trustee (one opening):

• Steve Geer
  
• Tracy Petrozzi (incumbent)

Supervisor of the Checklist (three openings):

Six year term (one opening):

• Irene LaChance
• Mary Villuame

Two year (one opening)

• Connie Moses (incumbent)

School Board (two openings):

• Conrad Hanf
• Rae Mellow-Andrews
• Don Pangburn
• Derek Tomlinson (long term incumbent)

Posted by Skip at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Limited Government means exactly that - limited.

And that means government does a few things and not all things for all people just because "it is a good idea" or solves someone's specific need.   Why do we have Big Government?  Many reasons:

• One general reason is the socialistic nature of Progressives (think mostly Democrats, but can be Republicans too - those that believe that only Big Government can make the right decisions for us all).
• One more is that our education system is failing to teach the basics of our founding - not only the history but the WHY of that history (and given Reason #1, this reason isn't too difficult to grasp). 
• Yet another reason is that faced by Project Managers all over: "scope creep", or the tendency of all projects to get bigger so as to do more "good stuff" and thus get too complicated, misses milestones, and costs too much.
• Lastly, another is that too many folks are too lazy or unwilling to live up to their own responsibilities - easier to outsource the fulfillment of a need to others (both the service and the cost). 
  

Thus, we end up with Bigger Government either through ideology, lack of knowledge of our historical roots, bureaucratic sprawl, or unwillingness to step up to the plate.

Town budget season is wrapping up all over NH; my hamlet is no exception. Last part of our job was to Recommend / NOT Recommend four Petition Warrant articles to fund charities with taxpayer monies (if that sounds like gobbledy-gook, see after the jump). Of COURSE, there are those that have no compunction about donating their fellow citizens tax money for charitable purposes - regardless of whether those citizens would normally support that charity.  One of my fellow Budgeteers tried to equate donating to these social services organizations with funding the Town's Fire Dept; after all, we pay for the latter's service and thus, fails to see any difference: 

"Back in the day, our families used to provide this service but that doesn't exist anymore for most of us. So many of us will rely on these services at some point in our lifetime.  So I don't think it is like giving to  other charitable organizations which are kind of nice but you don't need them in your life."

The dirty secret why it doesn't exist is because we let it - it has become far easier let to of that responsibility and outsource the care of our families to society at large than do it ourselves. Before I get into the argument of why this is a straw-man argument (as well as being irrelevant), watch this shortened clip:

What she fails to mention is significant:

Continue reading "Not mine to give...." »

Posted by Skip at 08:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This past Thursday night, the Gilford Budget Committee presented its Budget to the townfolk of Gilford.  Here is the presentation that I was able to record:

For the most part, things were uncontroversial; the majority of the discussion from the audience were from folks stating that we MUST give taxpayer monies to their charities (Community Health and Hospice, Genesis) - after all, they provide uncompensated services FAR in excess of what the town gives them.

The only "surprise" of the evening was when Evans Juris showed up and started to ask questions of the budget.  The surprise was not so much, to me, that he showed up (although there were a few raised eyebrows at his late entrance) but more the questions he asked - even though the budget amounts / line items were "moved around" by the current administration, he was the Town Administrator and should have known some of the answers.

Of course, right after the Public Session, the Budget Committee held another BudComm meeting to discuss its recommendations for the Petition Warrant Articles concerning the outside agencies / social services / charitable organizations.  It can be seen here:

Overall, the budget, including Warrant Articles, is flat over last year.  Now it will be up to the Deliberative Session for the taxpayers to make any adjustments that they want.  Then, the SB2 voting by ballot will make it official and binding - the Legislative body of Gilford, NH - the voters - will have spoken.

Posted by Skip at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This past Tuesday, the Gilford Budget Committee held its Public Session concerning the SAU / School District budget.   Overall, the BudComm found no real contentions to deal with - the item that received the most discussion was that of adding yet another sport to the school system - Lacrosse.  You can see the discussions here:

Of course, the Bud Comm also had its meeting afterward to either bring up any issues for reconsideration and to  Recommend or Not Recommend the Warrant Article for Lacrosse.  That can be seen here:

Posted by Skip at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

UPDATE II:  The PDF of the settlement is here.

UPDATE:  Now, I ticked - it wasn't $37K - it was ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND and 37K ??

I sent the following to Scott Dunn, the Town Administrator:

Hi Scott,

Question for you - do I need to file a Right To Know request to find out the Selectmens' vote to settle with Juris?
-Skip 

What I got back was this:

On 1/13/2010 9:05 AM, Scott Dunn wrote:

Here is a copy of the settlement agreement.

The minutes of the meeting where the agreement was reviewed and approved
by the Board were sealed during a non-public session.

I have the PDF - I will post it up later on today.  My return email was this:

On 1/13/2010 9:20 AM, Skip Murphy wrote:

So the public is NOT going to know if the vote was a 2-1 or a 3-0?

For how long are the minutes sealed?

-Skip 

OK, John, Kevin, and Gus, how long did you seal them for? You going to let us know how you voted?

My take away?  I don't know how much would have been at risk if a trial had gone forward.  It looks like the Local Government Center may have taken the lead on this (being the insurer) and just paid Juris off.

So the message, and morale of the story is - just sue, even if it looks like a loser - and get paid off by the Town and LGC.

I want to know who caved in!  While it may have been the checkbook of the LGC that ante'd up most of the zeros to the left of the decimal place on the check, the Selectmen (Gus, Kevin, and John) had to have had a vote to agree to "buy peace" as the PDF puts it.

Such a price to pay - Juris is smiling all the way to the bank.

I still give kudos to Gus and Connie for doing the right thing, but this was not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Both the Citizen and the Sun ran stories that basically heralded the end of the Juris era in Gilford.  Yes, his actual tenure ended March of 2008, but this lawsuit kept the door opened ajar against a final closing.

Now we know the final amount - and Juris has to pay his lawyer and the Feds their due of that amount.

A couple of points:

• I still wish that the Selectmen had pushed it right to the end and not settled.
• Who gets paid first: the Feds in income taxes or the lawyers?  In this case, I'm rooting (oh my gosh, I can't believe I'm saying this!) for the Feds to get theirs first....for obvious fallout reason.

Lastly, the Citizen article had this:

"The purpose of the release is to 'buy peace' from further dispute and controversy" between Juris and the town, states the agreement, signed on Nov. 11.

I ask:

Why has it taken almost two months for this information to come out?

'Bye, Evans...

Posted by Skip at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Streaming live!

Video clips at Ustream

Posted by Skip at 06:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

First I’d like to thank Mr. O’Brien for his contribution to Gilfordgrok. We always welcome opinions of differing views, especially, a post as lively as his. I like to let a posted opinion stay on top for more viewing until at least the next day before responding.

He brings up several good points worth discussing. Unfortunately, his post is a rambling hate filled rant that contains so many incorrect assertions that a response would be very long and time consuming. I will however address the actual point of my original post. Just for Mr. O’Brien’s clarification, the point; my surprise in his “yes” vote to add more spending to fund another school sports program. I was surprised because his vote didn’t square with the views that he expressed to me in person.

I’m now concerned that it’s actually worse than I originally thought. Mr. O'brien is telling us that before the long scheduled Budget Committee “discussion”, on Lacrosse, he didn’t know the Lacrosse program was for both boys and girls, has attracted 70 students, their grades are improving and they will provide their own equipment.

 It appears I truly have mischaracterized the man because I serious thought he was more researched on Budget committee topics before the meetings. I suppose holding up a moist finger and checking the political winds works just as well for some elected officials.

Posted by Terry S. at 08:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm not going to address most of the guest post by John but I do have some thoughts:

Mr. Stewart, it would be interesting to know your overall bottom line budget strategy goal. 

I don't know about Terry, but here is my philosophy - at no time (during "normal times") should the rate of Government spending be above the rate of inflation.  Roughly stated, that is also, in general terms, the rise in income of most families.  My guiding question has always been "WHY should the revenue growth of government exceed that of the families that support it"?  Government should serve the taxpayers - not the other way around.

That has always been my focus - and always will.  Sure, it gets me in trouble with folks that have no problem in extending the role of government - for them, the Proper Role of Government is that of a more socialistic state - the collective doing it all for the residents.  With a healthy dash of "we know best" thrown in as well.

Is it your goal to cut budgets 10%, or is it 20%, or is it 30%? 

As was said repeatedly this budget season, this is not normal economic times.  Don't get me wrong - I DID appreciate seeing that both the Town and School budgets came in a tad less than last years, but I believe that they should have been trimmed more and my votes reflect that.

Not in all cases, as the Selectmens' viewpoint (often discussed during our deliberations) was to "save jobs and cut stuff"; my problem was that when I tried to cut more stuff, I was outvoted - consistently.

I'll answer the question: would 5% have been OK with me?  Yes - put off the new phone system, a truck, a cruiser, and a couple other "big" things.  10%?  OK, but at that point, you would be near the bone.  In this environment, perhaps needed as many of our residents have seen decreases in their incomes of at least that much if not more - I see no problem in ratcheting Government down in a similar manner.  20 - 30% - certainly not in one fell swoop - I'd rather keep spending flat for a while and let taxpayers "get ahead" and then let expenditures have a controlled growth.

Do you want to eventually cut services to the people of Gilford? 

Since when did "services" become sacrosanct?  It seems that the Holy Grail of any level of Government is to NEVER decrease an existing level of "services" - only grow them (or strive to keep them level if it is absolutely clear that decreasing them is the alternative). 

Look, in bad times, things have to get cut - Companies cut services or the production of goods.  Families have to cut their expenditures when times get rough as well.

I have news for folks that believe that Government has to supply all needs - it cannot.  Nor should it. Instead, I would challenge the Leadership in Government (elected and appointed) to have the courage to tell the citizenry:

• What is the "internal ranking" of departments - which is the most important and which is the least"?
• Of the  services offered by each department, rank them: most needed to least needed".

Example: the Police would be either the number one or two ranked department.  However, the "call the seniors programs" that seem to be springing up all over would rank well below that of being able to respond to a burglary.

In fact, such a ranking system should be implemented and made known - letting the citizens know where the Selectmen priorities are set and then see how the funding follows that.

Is your intent to totally demoralize the employees (which also affects services) and the people of Gilford?

This will make me unpopular, but I will say it anyways - no employee, private or public, deserves a job.  No one is entitled to a job.  While Management does need to take that into account in either sector, there are times that "doing the right thing" is to remove funding from an organization - not doing so is mgt malfeasance.  But I am tired of hearing, when a motion has been made to defund a line item or a series of line items, the immediate, knee-jerk response:

• You're cutting services!
• You're demoralizing employees!

Sorry, my PRIMARY role as a Budget Committee member is to watch out for the taxpayers' wallets.  Period.

Let me also state this: I believe that the taxpayers are adults, not children.  Sure, special interest groups are going to complain when their specific ox is being gored, but we are elected to make the tough decisions - not run away from them, scared of the heat that might rise from making an unpopular "cutting" action.  Most taxpayers, especially right now, understand that sometimes, they cannot have what they want.  They deal with priorities all the time - I think that they understand that (except for that particular special interest group) that not everything can be done all the time.

They can deal with that - being adults.

  Is it your plan to make Gilford only a “town” and not have any sense of community? 

Sorry John, but I'm going to blunt here: this was a stumble in the long, dark hole called "dumb".  Since when has ANYONE (other than a collectivist EVER said maintained that Government spending is a foundational criteria of having a sense of community?  C'mon John, you were kidding when your keys were tapping on the keyboard, right? 

High GOVERNMENT, or Government spending is NOT equivalent to a sense of community.  Nor is a sense of community dependent on NO spending, either.  Frankly, IMHO, anyone that maintains that HAS to agree with the following (or some variant thereof):

People can only be happy when Government provides things to them.  And ONLY Government can provide those things that create a sense of community.

Prove me wrong.  John continues:

But let’s insure that we don’t add to the tough times by making low dollar amount cuts that affect morale for everyone any more than necessary. 

Sorry John, I depart from you again.  Yes, morale is important - but does it rise above families that have to do without in order to pay their tax bills?  What about THEIR sense of demoralization - I heard little about that except for Sue, Terry, and I on a regular basis.

With these words, what you are telling the taxpayers of Gilford, especially those at the lower end of the financial spectrum, that you are  saying is that you value the morale of the employees over the struggles of the taxpayers that pay the bill.

Oh, one last thing - in reference to your bullet items of detailing the discussion items at which Terry was not present and thus, giving the impression that he should not voted?  Two thoughts:

• the Dormady Defense
• The discussion we had last year where Dale insisted that a decision has to be made solely on a line item / numbers basis while I disagreed saying that disagreeing on a purely philosophical basis was just as valid.

Terry's No vote, based on those two observations, was as valid as anyone else who voted.

Posted by Skip at 06:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Guest post by John O'Brien (Selectman and Selectboard representative to the Budget Committee)

I want to thank you for your personal review of my recent vote and YOUR opinion of how I should vote.  It’s certainly comforting to know that there is another standard (yours) that I should follow in using my voting privilege.  However, I am disappointed that I don’t get an “at-a-boy” when my vote agrees with yours.  Interestingly, you and I have voted positively on just about all the issues of the 2010 budget.
 
While I was not “whispering” about your lack of attendance at meetings, there was a question in my mind of your ability to come to a conclusion on the merits of the proposed Lacrosse program.  Evidently, in your opinion the discussions/debates during the committee meetings are worthless and we should just fall back to your sub-committee of one to form our votes.  However, in speaking of Lacrosse:

• You were not there when we discussed that this sport is growing in interest in this area.
• You were not there when we discussed that the number of students currently involved in this sport numbers 70, which is more than football.
  
• You were not there when we discussed that both young men AND women are involved in this activity.
• You were not there when the athletic director and the school principal reported that grades were improved for students wanting to be involved in these sports
• You were not there when we discussed that there is fundraising in place that is helping students with safety equipment and uniforms.
  

However, I am now better informed from your report that the Lacrosse players don’t pick up divots on the shared field……(you based you vote on that?).  And, you are correct, I have had some questions about spending in the schools but when we can achieve some balance of support and morale building for a large number of male AND female students and give them a productive after school activity, I’m all for it!

It is very sad and unfortunate that you have to resort to “name calling” and “personal attacks” for folks that have a different opinion from yours.  I expect that your other “peers” on the budget committee did not appreciate being referred to as “suspects”.  The other members of the BC respect your vote, you should respect theirs!  Also, I believe it was you that wrote earlier that your fellow committee member, Ms. Corrigan, should tend to her garden rather than be involved on the committee.  And evidently, you have not followed our votes well enough as Phyllis and I have not agreed on a number of issues over the years.   Additionally, you did not report that as a Selectman, I was supportive and involved in recommending a flat 2010 budget to the committee.  And, being on the Budget Committee for a number of years, I continually supported and was greatly involved in a reduction of the town budget every year.  But I never was fortunate enough to receive an official Stewart published approval.  Perhaps I can look forward to that?

Mr. Stewart, it would be interesting to know your overall bottom line budget strategy goal.  Is it your goal to cut budgets 10%, or is it 20%, or is it 30%?  Do you want to eventually cut services to the people of Gilford?  Is your intent to totally demoralize the employees (which also affects services) and the people of Gilford?  Is it your plan to make Gilford only a “town” and not have any sense of community?  Yes, times are tough!  But let’s insure that we don’t add to the tough times by making low dollar amount cuts that affect morale for everyone any more than necessary.  Let’s insure that we look at budgets with a watchful eye and cut costs of frivolous spending.        

John T. O’Brien
Selectman’s Representative to the Budget Committee

Posted by Skip at 05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During a recent Budget Committee (BC) meeting I walked in at the 11^th hour and voted “NO” on recommending the proposed lacrosse warrant article. There was quite a bit of whispering from the usual suspects who were not pleased with my vote. How could I possibly be prepared to vote if I didn’t hear the forty minute discussion? Was I informed? Why did I hurry a two hour drive to the Atlanta airport, pay an extra $50 for a earlier flight and drive as fast as I legally could from Boston to cast my “no” vote?

The proposed warrant article was written and distributed back in November. Immediately upon seeing the warrant article back in November, I found out that the lacrosse program was requesting full funding from the tax payers. To refresh everyone’s memory, football wasn’t widely supported until the program agreed to offset a significant portion of the program through fundraising. I have always strongly believed that fundraising is part of the educational process in teaching children the value of something while building character and team work skills. The proposal also includes plenty of “stipend” money for the coaches, which I have always opposed. Not to mention that it’s well known that the lacrosse team completely refuses to help the football team maintain the field in which they both share.  

I’m actually stunned this budget request garnished any “yes” votes but there are those BC members that have yet to meet any spending proposals they don’t like. The big surprise however was a “yes” vote from John O’Brien, who represents the Selectmen. That means an automatic second “yes” vote from BC member Phyllis Corrigan because she parrots his votes. The reason his vote surprised me is because he expressed a great deal of concern over the school budget. Mrs. Corrigan’s vote makes no sense because she once fought for more focus on academics, believing the sports programs were more than sufficient. Their votes make absolutely no sense toward fiscal responsibility.

If there ever was a spending item that represented “spending just for the sake of spending”, this one would be the poster child! It’s not like the Gilford school district is lacking in a wide variety of electives. Gilford students have more than enough extracurricular choices to keep them engaged in school; some would say too many. Every BC member also knows the additional hidden costs for these programs such as, administration costs, field maintenance and escalating insurance premiums. Once all the “non discretionary” spending is accounted for, the sports programs account for about 30% of the discretionary spending. If you add the administration cost, it moves closer to 40%. Adding another sports program to the overall budget is nothing short of completely irresponsible.  

The school district has been very fortunate these past few years with teacher retirements, staff reductions and some debt retirement. That gravy train has come to an end. The non discretionary spending increases will no longer offset staff reductions and the student population will soon bottom out. If Gilford experiences any catastrophes such as emergency building problems, health insurance increases, new playing field needs and you have the making for huge spikes in the school budget. Is it any wonder why the Superintendant’s office is expressing serious concern toward future budgets?  

Given that back drop, how could anyone possibly support adding yet another program to the school budget? This has nothing to do with Lacrosse but one of fiscal responsibility. It’s time for the voters to say “enough is enough”.

Posted by Terry S. at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From the Steamer (12/10/09, p10) is this quote from Dr. DiMinico

There is no question that our students need to acquire knowledge from the traditional 3Rs—Reading, Writing and Arithmetic; but the traditional 3Rs alone will not guarantee success for the 21st century.  Many current researchers in education and in business have suggested that a new set of 3Rs needs to be considered when readying students for their universities, their careers and for their lives in general. They are Rigor, Relevance and Respectful Relationships.

No, but it certainly would help if students could MASTER the traditional three Rs first before moving to a second set. I think that advice would certainly be truthful for this trio of young adults (would you consider them "well educated" and knowledgable?).

As far as our high school students are concerned, do these signify that they are ready to graduate to the "advanced 3Rs"?

Just saying that Gilford Students are "less bad" is not a defense.  And it didn't get any better this year either:

Worse, year over year.

Shall we try Science, anyone?

Worse, year over year. Again.

My question is, why are these numbers NOT in the Steamer?  These were obtained from the NH Department of Education (I'll post the full results later on, as I have in the past) - they are publicly available.  Why are we paying more than the state average for less?

Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmatic - not looking good at all.  Looking at those marks for Proficient or Better, when did we decide as a Town that 40% was acceptable?  Or 34%? 

Methinks that perhaps that master of the first set of Rs might be well in order before we get to the next set.  Wouldn't that be Relevant to achievement and Respectful to the taxpayers?

Posted by Skip at 12:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My friend Chan over at WeekendPundit asked for a link:

I don't always read what others post here on Weekend Pundit.

... It's my blog and, in the end, it's my responsibility for what's posted here.

Posted by Skip at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Dear Editor:

I recently read an article where Paul DeMinico [Superintendent, Gilford, NH SAU  -Skip] argued in favor of adopting the International Baccalaureate Program.  He seemed to be arguing against the many controversial issues that plague this program.  It's as if he simply cannot admit that this program comes with baggage.  Cost being one of those obstacles.

In these tough economic time, it's wise for taxpayers to look closely at any spending program.  This one should not be excluded from scrutiny.
 
This program does come at a hefty cost to taxpayers.  This is one of the main reasons Bow residents refused to allow the program in that district.

On top of the costs is the agenda of this program.  All one has to do is visit the IB web site to see that they promote a United Nations agenda within the program.  This isn't a conspiracy, they happily tell you this at their web site.
 
If Dr. DeMinico visits this site, he will read where IB states:

"The new syllabus, for which students will first sit exams in 2011, is designed to encompass the United Nations' millennium development goals, particularly those concerning poverty reduction, gender equality, improvements in health and education, and environmental sustainability." 

"Students must evaluate progress towards UN goals and take a close look at major global issues including population migration, global warming, biodiversity and resource availability."

Clearly the IB program does not shy away from using the classroom to advance the political agenda of the United Nations.

Given the fact that the IB was developed by individuals who promote a leftist agenda and given the fact that the UN is considered to be a leftist political organization, does anyone actually think that this program will refrain from politically indoctrinating students?

The NAEP (National Assessment) recently showed about half of our 4th and 8th grade students were NOT proficient in basic math.  The NECAP science proficiency scores were also recently released and the findings were troublesome.

The last thing we need to do is shift more education to indoctrination.  In fact, instead of promoting expensive political indoctrination programs, it would seem logical to instead use that money on the students who are failing in the core academic subjects.  
 
It is through education that our students will be able to compete in a global market, not through more political indoctrination.
 
Sincerely,
Ann Marie

Ann Marie Banfield is a mathematics expert and education standards activist residing in New Hampshire

(cross posted at GraniteGrok)

Posted by Skip at 08:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here is the recording of the Budget Committee (before, during, and after):

Here is Doug Lambert's resignation letter:

Addressed to Richard Hickok, Chair, Gilford Budget Committee:

Please accept this letter as official notice of my resignation from the Municipal Budget Committee effective immediately. Given my recent inappropriate and hurtful remark directed at Mr. Ray Buckley, I feel that it would no longer be in the best interests of the good people that elected me to serve them to remain as their representative. Any and all actions made by me in a continued public capacity will be forever marked with the stain of my regrettable words, and it is not fair to those who had nothing to do with them. After abusing the powerful voice I was so generously provided, I feel I must forfeit all of the pieces, and this is the final part. I am retiring fully to a private life and ask that you all respect my choice in doing so. Let my last words be that of my sincerest apology to Mr Buckley, again, and to all others that have been hurt by the words I freely admit I said, and will forever own.

Douglas Lambert 

Posted by Skip at 09:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This Bud Comm meeting tonite may have a few more attendees than normal - hopefully is will not turn into a circus.  For that reason, I'll be live video streaming (provided the Town Hall WiFi system is up) as I have the last few meetings.

There has certainly been a lot of outrage over what Doug said, and for what he has apologized (here, here, and here; comments included).  For some, it does not seem to be sufficient (as I said in my remarks)

There have been some that have started to ask that the Board of Selectmen and / or the Budget Committee kick Doug off the BudComm; for the record, a Mr. Emond took the action of emailing a number of folks directly (see bottom-most) without giving Doug the courtesy of being included - as you can see, Terry Stewart added him into the conversation and commented (I believe, rightfully), on Mr. Emond's email.

Oh yes, I forgot - I asked that all emails in this matter be included in the formal record and forwarded the string for that purpose, as you can see below..

I also included a comment left over at GraniteGrok from someone claiming to live in Gilford condemning Doug - I would ask "is his/her opening sentence much better" (emphasis mine)?  If you look over at GraniteGrok (see the links above), there are a number of comments that I have deleted for foul language far in excess of what would be permissible in general society, even in a mostly private gathering.

A couple of points:

• Does anyone here in Gilford recognize that email address:  volklman17@hotmail.com

I think I have seen it before but cannot remember who it might belong to - in any case, it is a "dead" one.

• It is not entirely clear that it is the remarks are really concerned with Doug's outburst - rather, it is more politically oriented in that Doug has been effective in limiting spending and keeping taxpayers' bills low these last few years.

If this person is so hot and bothered that the town is not spending enough by not taxing enough, why has he/she not taking a check down to Town Hall, loaded with a number of zeros to the left of the decimal point, loudly proclaim he/she has done so, and use that "leading by example" to persuade others to simply give money to the Town?

I think I know why, and almost always comes down to this - People are willing to raise other peoples' taxes to pay for their "good ideas" as it costs them little in proportion.  It takes leadership to step forward the way I describe above; something that someone who starts a diatribe on a public forum with the word a*****e seems to be lacking.

I hope that whoever the owner of volklman17@hotmail.com is/was shows up tonite - it might be an interesting conversation.

========================================

On 11/18/2009 4:57 PM, Skip Murphy wrote:

At least Mr. Emond was polite - others from Gilford have not been as they left comments about Doug on GraniteGrok.  I do not know who belongs to this email address, so I do not know who this is, but certainly retribution (not reconciliation) is on his mind - certainly this person's tone is not that of a polite manner.  I will be posting this up at GilfordGrok - it may be indicative of the kind of meeting that might happen if control is not kept; perhaps by doing so, it may serve to keep some of the rhetoric down:

     IP Address: 207.121.66.26
     Name: Anonymous
     Email Address: volklman17@hotmail.com
     URL:
     Comments:

     This guy is an asswipe.  Thats being generous. How could you ever publicly
     humiliate gays like that? I'm not gay and I live in Gilford and listen to
     me - it is the best thing for this town for Doug Lambert to go down in
       flames.  All we need now is him out of the budget committee so the town
     might actually be able to spend some money improving itself.  I was so
     happy when this article came about in the Laconia Daily Sun, because I knew
     I would not have to listen to his petty complaints that he puts in the
     paper everyday anymore.  So if there was ever a time to thank Doug Lambert,
     it is today, after he said the remarks he said online to Ray Buckley

Terry, just as you added Doug to this email thread, I have added this email address to this as well for full and complete disclosure.

Sandy, as always, I believe these emails should be entered into the official minutes, if you would.

-Skip

=======================================================


To: 'David Emond'; 'rhickok@myfairpoint.net'
Cc: 'mgw@metrocast.net'; 'sue@lambsearyarns.com'; 'skip@granitegrok.com'; 'mcorry@nsscorp.com'; 'kpr57@live.com'; 'daledormody@gilfordbudget.com'; 'jtojto@aol.com'; 'reltubderf@hotmail.com'; 'pdeminico@gilford.k12.nh.us'
Subject: RE: Doug Lambert Article

 
Dear folks,

I have been out of town during this event and have simply the benefit of the news media for information.

I would like to comment on Mr. Emond’s concerns.

1)      Who's the next target for Mr. Lambert; perhaps the elderly, or those who migrated here from other countries to seek freedom from such acts? As I understand it. Mr. Lambert has been very contrite in this matter. He has expressed apology for his hurtful words. He has been punished (appropriately) in a number of ways. As I understand it, his radio program and his column were his life’s work and very special to him. Those things have been completely reduced to ash with Mr. Lambert’s complete understanding and apologies. Is there any room in the communities heart for forgiveness? How much punishment will be enough? Will he be allowed to continue living in the community?

2)      Mr. Lambert has created a hostile environment for our entire community and he needs to GO. If a child attending our schools conducted themselves in this manner they would be expelled. Places of employment terminate employees for such actions so why would we allow Mr. Lambert to remain in his position?   Schools and businesses DO NOT seek suspension as a first step to these kinds of offensive behaviors because that is NOT the solution. And to be clear, Mr. Emond is requesting an expulsion not a suspension. Businesses take immediate action with required counseling and appropriate reprimands. If the offender is unwilling to recognize the offensive behavior and repeats those offenses then suspensions and expulsions are the next step, not the first.

3)      Mr. Lambert is in a position to influence major decisions within our community. How can we trust that any future decisions he makes (or influences) will be in any way objective?  Mr Lambert is in a position to influence major decisions within our community. How can we trust that any future decisions he makes (or influences) will be in any way objective? Dick always accurately describes the Budget Committee as a body of many different opinions. Even if Mr. Lambert harbored bigoted intentions in his budget decisions, which is absurd, he would clearly be a lone minority.

I would caution the Budget Committee from making moves to remove Mr. Lambert from office unless he chooses to resign. Mr. Lambert will need to reconcile his own demons and I could think of NO BETTER lesson to our children than witness this community helping him through this process and NOT run him out of town on a rail. He has expressed more than a willingness to change from every public news piece I’ve read. Would it be wise to teach our children to be angry and hate Bigots that have expressed a willingness to change?

Let’s please try and not over react.

 

Terry

 

================================================= 

From: David Emond [mailto:DavidE@lrcs.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 2:27 PM To: rhickok@myfairpoint.net Cc: mgw@metrocast.net; sue@lambsearyarns.com; tstewart@lr.net; skip@granitegrok.com; mcorry@nsscorp.com; kpr57@live.com; daledormody@gilfordbudget.com; jtojto@aol.com; reltubderf@hotmail.com; pdeminico@gilford.k12.nh.us Subject: Doug Lambert Article

Like many people in the Town of Gilford my wife and I have two young children in the Gilford middle and high schools. Both our children have been taught to be respectful towards one another and respect the beliefs of others, how they choose to live their lives, their religious beliefs and se*ual orientation. We moved to Gilford and chose to raise our children here because we felt it was a safe community that values diversity and embraces change.

How can we expect our children to respect and accept diversity, challenge bigotry, stand up for those being discriminated against and bullied if we have an elected official acting in this manner? What kind of role models will our children see of our government officials, and how will they trust our political system, if we continue to allow this type of (for lack of a better word) crap? How will other minorities be viewed? Who's the next target for Mr. Lambert; perhaps the elderly, or those who migrated here from other countries to seek freedom from such acts?

To have an elected member of our town government act in this manner is embarrassing to me as a resident of Gilford and should not be tolerated. As a member of this community I would hope that the Town of Gilford Board of Selectmen and Budget Committee quickly address this issue and remove Mr. Lambert from office immediately. Mr. Lambert will hide behind his right of free speech; what about the rights of those he has violated.

David Emond 

Posted by Skip at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)