Links


Town of Gilford Offices


Gilford Main Page
Office of Selectmen
Town Administration - Scott Dunn
Town Clerk-Tax Collector - Denise Morrissette
Appraisal Dept. - Marsha McGinley
Finance Dept - Geoff Ruggles
Fire Dept. - Jim Hayes
Gilford Library-Katherine Dormoday
Planning Dept.-John Ayer
Police Dept. - John E. Markland
Public Works - Sheldon Morgan
Parks and Recreation - Herbert Greene

Board and Committees


Selectmen - Connie Grant, Gus Benevides, Kevin Hayes
Budget Committee
Board of Fire Engineers
Library Trustees
Planning Board
Zoning Board of Adjustment

Meeting Calendar

Gilford Schools


SAU #73 Gilford
SAU #73 Mission and Beliefs
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
NHAEP-NH

State of NH


State of NH Official Web Site
State of NH Laws (RSAs)

Executive Counselor


Ray Burton (R)

State Senator


Kathleen Sgambati(D)

State Representatives


Click here for more State Rep info

(R) Allen, Janet F
(R) Boyce, Laurie J
(R) Clark, Charles L
(R) Flanders, Donald H
(R) Heald, Bruce D
(R) Millham, Alida I
(R) Nedeau, Stephen H
(R) Pilliod, James P
(R) Russell, David H
(R) Thomas, John H
(R) Tilton, Franklin T
(R) Tobin, William B
(R) Wendelboe, Fran

(D) Aresenault, Beth
(D) Morrison, Gail C
(D) Reever, Judith
(D) Wood, Jane

Local News


The Citizen (Lakes Region)
The Concord Monitor
The Gilford Steamer
The Laconia Daily Sun
The Union Leader
The Weirs Times

Local Commentary


GraniteGrok
Weekend Pundit
One Voice In Gilford
NH Insider

« September 2006 | Main | November 2006 »

October 31, 2006

The Empire Strikes Back...

As noted in Skip's earlier posting, the powers that be, and their frontmen, the Board of Selectmen, have decided to publicly chide the Budget Committee (Budcom) for its use of the data comparison study created by a subcommittee. This is, as you know, a document created BY the Budcom, FOR the Budcom, with data from the state of NH as submitted by the town.
.
In their Friday press release, "the selectmen" imply that the data has been "misconstrued" and they they are responding to the Budcom's work stating that they want the "taxpayers to be accurately informed" as if to say the report is somehow innacurate and that the people might be misinformed. Isn't that how the bureacracy always characterizes those who don't tote their line?
.
Today's Citizen carries a report on this ongoing back and forth over data between the business as usual crowd and those trying to stabilize Gilford's escalating cost of government.
The selectmen indicate in their statement that the criteria for selecting the comparison towns was inaccurate, leading to inaccurate conclusions.
.
"I just think they don't have the right information. They may be the right numbers, but they are the wrong conclusions," said Selectmen Chair Dennis Doten.
Reasonable people could disagree on this point, and do, for sure. The part that really struck me about the "selectmen's" statement is the part about how they are aware of escalating costs and have attempted to change policies to correct the rise.
The Board of Selectmen is acutely aware of the price of providing highly skilled and dedicated employees to serve the people of this Town and their “guests”.  We have implemented several significant policy changes in response to these escalating costs
Message to the "selectmen": April Fools Days comes at the END of winter...
.
Anyway, the Citizen story is informative and accurate, except for this last part:
While he is glad to see the selectmen taking on the issue, Lambert said he does not feel it is appropriate for the selectmen to offer comment when the budget committee has not even discussed it with them.
What I said (or meant) was that it was innapropriate to direct comment at the budget committee's use of the data comparison since they haven't been allowed to discuss it yet. While I disagree with what they say, they are free to do so. Besides, the Budcom doesn't really need their input on this matter at this point, until they are asked to provide it.

October 30, 2006

Site Notice - Links to Town of Gilford are broken

Since the Town of Gilford just redid their site, some of the links to the left are not working correctly.  I will try to get to these in a couple of days and fix them all.

I would ask for your indulgence on this - please be patient - I thought other things were just a little more important in the short term - instead of fixing the links to theTown, it was time to chide them a bit (click here).

 

-Skip 

Another lesson to be taught.....

Update 1

 I like playing with numbers, and I would be dishonest if I did not show the table that is now at the bottom of this link.  The percentages are computed differently, with a different result for the number of Positions within 10% of max and 15% of max.

I had originally done just a quick percentage of Actual / Max (which has validity).  Now, I tried:

Now, I actually disect the range span (how big is the Salary Range) and normalize the Actual from two ways

  • Subtract the Minimum from the Actual, use that number determine resulting percentage using the Range Span
  • Subtract the Actual from the Max, use that number to determine the resulting percentage using the Range Span

 

Some may say that this is a more valid approach - my take is that either way, there is still a structural problem with Wages.  I will repeat this at the bottom with the actual table.

-Skip 

 

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

WARNING - long post, but hopefully this is done is a silly way that matches the silly season we're in and the silliness in which I intend.  Just make sure you stub your toes on the FACTS in order to note them.....and I'll point out those things that aren't.... 

After all, if something is issued out to the Web, it is fair game in the blogosphere to, ahem, comment on it. 

It figures, doesn't it?  It is the silly time of year twice over here in our Town.  For one thing, we  are subjected to this spate of electioneering (of which I take part, but only as a semi-serious hobby so far - for others, it's their life blood, right Niel?).  Not to worry, a few more weeks will cure that....

The other half is that it is budget time.....and is much more serious (and will last a couple of months, not weeks).  As many readers know, this is my first year on the Budget Committee and as part of it, I created all (but one) of the charts used in the Wage Comparison Study (Under Categories to the right, click on Statistics - review the Summary Table and the others).  All of the data was taken from publicly available data (found here and here) that Gilford itself reported their "stuff" too.  Yup!  ALL the data PERTAINING to Gilford, CAME from Gilford (Hat tip to Las Vegas for lifting their signature phrase).

Apparently, this has ticked off more than a few people in no uncertain terms, as the Board of Selectmen ("BOS") sent out this notice via their handy dandy email blast feature (that JUST started to work again JUST in time - many of us on the Budget Committee weren't getting them at all for quite some time - it just started to work again - imagine that!).  You can read it there without comment, or I will be most happy to provide my own tour of their utterances.

Yes, in the short tradition of blogging, I'm about to do a "Fisking".  Now, for those of you new to the blogosphere, go here to find out more about this now time honored tradition beloved by bloggers everywhere.  But if you're short on time (or all clicked out), it basically is just a run through of an article, pointing out boneheaded statements that are demonstrably false or irrelevant.  A few of each, in this case.

Anyways, the folks behind this Board of Selectmen missive aren't happy campers, and I doubt this is going to cheer them up any either.  And on behalf of you, my loyal readers, I am quite amused to present this as a chuckle-rama!

And, oh, by the way, I have this feeling that after this, there will be some people that will not be too enamored of me.  Good thing this is hosted somewhere in cyberspace....and backed up in several spots.

Anyways, class, let us begin, shall we?

In response to a presentation by the Gilford Budget Committee of their analysis of municipal wage information,

Why, they're talking about ME!  While the OFFICIAL Budget Committee Wage Comparison Subcommittee (led by Budget Committee Chairman Dick Hickock, joined by John O'Brian, and your humble host) is responsible for the data, notice that they just can't be honest and say that it is me that they are not so keen on.  Hey folks, the name IS Skip and I would not have faulted you for using it!  I promise, no suing (at least, so far) - it is not considered good form in the blogosphere until absolutely necessary!  Nor is the style of non-addressing.

However, please note that at NO time, did we ever say it was yours (meaning the BOS's)- so if you don't like it, don't worry - at no time did we say you were responsible or even supported it. 

However, I would like to point out that I believe it would be truthful to say that since you folks are responsible for the policies and management oversight that lead to the current rankings as to what the Summary Table showed, there's plenty of responsibility to go around. 

Tell you what, you got studies, put them up.  The Town pays $1500 a year for having the Town's website hosted, use the way a website should be - put all of the Town's data out there for ALL to see EVERYTHING.

I can think of two off the top of my head:

  • 2004 Police Wage Comparison - show this in-house study the Police did with the larger town against Gilford was ranked
  • The 2004 Municipal Resources Study - Good money spent for it....let the town folks see how each dept was evaluated and recommendations.  And see what's been done so far with the department by department recommendations.
I'll list others as I find out about them.  Good, bad, or indifferent - you've got the technology, now use it.  To be sure, some depts actually have very good stories to tell - but under utilizing this asset you have isn't helping them. 

  

the Gilford Board of Selectmen would like to clarify some of the information that has been misconstrued on websites and in the newspaper.  

 

Clarify?  (This is so rich)  Clarify WHAT?

My data?

I clearly stated what data I used and how it was gathered,

My methodology? 

I laid out how I did the rankings, computed the rudimentary statistics, everything.  All I did was to take the raw data and do ONE level of analysis on it - a simple ranking of high to low on the Maximal Amount of Salary Ranges.  Period.  THIS is not rocket science - just a lot of time typing and organizing.

Oh, are we talking about opinion then?  Sorry, First Amendment protects all speech, even if considered offensive or wrong by others.  I might not like it, but tough - that is the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.  And it applies to Government entities. 

Opinions are just that, and if you are going to go after individual's opinion?  Well, I'm against groupthink, especially if the data shows the opposite.  For a governmental organization to rail against opinion?  That IS censorship (check the laws). 

 

We want our taxpayers to be accurately informed.

 

Are you saying that I am trying to inaccurately inform the public?  Or is this the start of impeaching credibility (Hey, I see those heads out there nodding up and down!) for a smackdown later on?  Or is this a case of shoot the messenger, the guy who is lifting the curtain and peering around the smoke for the first time?

The above sentence infers that I am deliberately misleading people.  Actually, that sentence is wrong - it is me, but also impugns the credibility of the entire Sub Committee (Dick and John, as they reviewed and approved the data and the style of presentation).  I may be a newbie on the scene, but to denigrate long term volunteers of the Town?  Not too sporting; I'd even say, mean spirited!

 

The data that was presented is the result of many hours of work and was presented in a professional and informative manner.  

 

Gee, thanks for damning me with faint praise!  Especially for what comes next:

 

Unfortunately, it has led to inaccurate conclusions and determinations.  

 

REALLY?  I do remember many times stating "the data is what it is" during the presentation.  At that time, I refused to go to the next step, an analysis, at that time.

Frankly, this is poor rhetorical debate strategy.  I formally request that the Board of Selectmen specifically state what these inaccurate conclusions and determinations are if I have said such.   So easy to state in the aggregate - lets see whatcha really got!  Or is it just smoke and mirrors, a sleight of hand maneuver to put the focus on me rather than the structural problem that the Town has with the Wage structure and the accompanying benefit and retirement costs (which, I will state now, are WAY better than the private sector and costing taxpayer beaucoup bucks)?

Bottom line - you have problems? List them specifically and I will address them.  Otherwise, the above is defenseless. 

Time to act more quickly folks - you're at Internet time now, whether you like it or not.  You don't like what you are seeing in the papers - start writing rebuttals and good logical explanations why. 

 

The basis of the information was a comparison of Gilford’s pay scales with 32 towns with a resident population of 5,000 – 9,999 people.  These were the 32 towns who responded to the Local Government Center’s 2005 survey.  

 

So far, so good, and accurate. Our present population is about 7,400.

 

When your Board of Selectmen prepares research to verify the effectiveness of our pay scales, they carefully consider the towns to be used in comparisons.  

 

Yeah, I was just a lazy son of a gun, just cherry picking those Towns our size.  Why?  because they ARE our size.  Comparing us to towns much smaller than ours would yield results that - well, not much different than what we see against the Towns I used!  The larger the Town or City, the same positions, in general, are paid on a higher scale.  BUT, they have larger populations that generally can afford to pay those higher salaries.  So that's why I did not use larger Towns.

So, I tried to keep to an "Apples to Apples" comparison. 

Oh yeah, this too - did you offer your research to the Budget Committee anew, especially to those of us new to the BudComm who would not have known that it existed....no, I didn't think so. 

Also, I am going to address that word "carefully" in just a moment.  It seems that you have a different definition than most folks do.... 

 

Many factors are taken into consideration and year round resident population is only one of them.  

 

Ah yes, the single most used reason that I hear as to why our wages must be higher - the converse of the above.  "But Skip, our wages must be higher, because we have all of these Summer people coming in.  And then in the Winter, we have all these winter wonderland guests coming in."

And yes, I provided a number of ancillary tables to show the relative differences and similarities of our demographic.  So I agree with the basic sentiment, but again, OUR study deliberately kept it simple.

So, let's set 'em up, and knock 'em down.

First, I have yet to hear or see from the Town Administration a quantification of this influx. From your own MRI study (page 38) in talking about the Police dept.:

"Nevertheless the information contained in the FBI Uniform Crime Report is instructive.  Nationally, there are 2.3 officers per 1000 population.  Communities with less than 10,000 inhabitants averaged 3.2.  Regionally, the Northeast has the highest ratio with 2.7 per 1000 population.  New Hampshire averages 2.07 officers per 1000. The ratio in Gilford is 2.4 officers per 1000 population, except during the summer when the ratio is approximately 1.2."

If the math is right, that means our population goes to about 14,800. 

Next, in reviewing the Fire Dept's own data, the calls spike in July, and then again in the Winter.  Why?  Ambulance runs.  Police calls peak in July (if I remember right).

So ,this is why our School Administrator's has to be at the top of the heap?

So what does this mean?  Should we be increasing the salary of the top level administrators, or the clerks, or anyone in between?  Does this temporary influx, with the spikes in July and in January, really demand that most of our positions be ranked first against all other towns in our demographic?

No, it doesn't....it just means that we need to add more people for a specific period of time. "Oh, but we cannot get people to work for that short of a period of time!"  Nonsense - Management is paid to overcome challenges - get creative.  And it isn't always by throwing lots of money at one particular position either.

The sensible thing is to add more manpower on the temp basis for those spikes - raising wages doesn't solve the manpower needs.

Oh, by the way, do the children of the "transient" population use the services of the entity that uses 2/3rds of the budget - the school system?  Naw, I didn't think so. 

 

There are many other criteria that reflect similarities and differences amongst towns, which should be considered.  

 

True, but let's go back to the original statement: 

 

the Gilford Board of Selectmen would like to clarify some of the information that has been misconstrued on websites and in the newspaper. 

 

It is THIS website (and GraniteGrok) - again, can't you even call a spade a spade?  Some might think that this is mere taunting (on both sides).  Well, yeah, it is - they just don't want to admit the this low level data has caused much consternation among those that want it "as it always has been - why upset the apple cart?".  Because I have to pay for those apples, that's why!

Hey, look at it this way - you are getting way more attention in how the Town is being managed and how budgets are being set.  This HAS to be a good thing, right? 

I do anyways, for if my data is wrong, I correct it (and have already done so for folks pointing out the errors).  If the BOS wants to, I'm happy to defend what was done and the underlying premises, at any time. 

Isn't that better than just taking pot shots at the Budget Committee's study? 

The problem for them is, I can back it up - my style (generally) is not that of Mr. Hoffman, nor is it generally of the tone or tenor of this Post.  However, when the Board of Selectmen wishes to denigrate the work of the Budget Committee that it did for its own purposes, I think I have the right to use righteous indignation to defend ourselves (don't you?)?  

 

Some of these are real estate values, the service population that the Town is required to serve, what level of municipal services are offered (and expected), municipal facilities, other recreational facilities, and the demographics of the taxpayer base.  We also must consider the surrounding communities and state agencies that compete for the local labor pool.  Gilford’s population swells during weekends, as well as during the summer months, May until September.

 

On a more serious note, I do agree with most of these criteria.  However, the BudComm does not set policy - we are only tasked and interested in where taxes are going and certainly the largest part of that is the wages and salary.

The BOS needs to be involved in setting pay ranges and grade levels - we just analyze the overall effect from an "observable data" position - the results of those policies, as it were.


When a comparison of “comparable” municipalities is done, as was done two years ago, Gilford’s pay scale was set exactly in the middle range and we expect that it has not moved much since then.  Where an individual employee falls within their pay range is a matter of performance, as determined by an annual evaluation process.

 

Like I said - put your study out on the Web for people to review.   And "expect" - if you want me to jump through hoops, put yourselves through them as well before you say anything.  VERIFY your assumption (for we all know what the root word - assume - can mean, right?).

 

The suggestion that all Town employees are at the top of their scale is not accurate.  

I promised that I would return to the word "carefully".  Well, now we will. 

You know something folks (Board of Selectmen and Town Administration)?  If you are putting out a press release putting down the BudComm's data and urging people to think your way is the only correct way, you ought to check your data before hitting the SEND button.  Accusing me of inaccurate data just isn't all that credible when we look at yours (current information).

From current Gilford Salary Range and Actuals data for just this year, look at the below table, especially the rightmost column.  For each position that I could match up from my Summary Table with the Position Title of the your Data, this column shows where the Actual Wage stands in relationship to its newest Maximal Salary Range. 

Those percentages in RED are within 10% of their Maximal value; those in YELLOW are within 15% of Maximal. 

Thus, your above statement is similar in ways to  GraniteGrok's Friday Humor of this past Friday - technically correct but not meaning much.  No, they aren't ALL at the top - just the majority of them.  Out of 31 positions, kinda looks like 19 are within 10% of the top and 6 more within 15%.

I think that 81% of the positions pretty much at the top kinda proves your above statement to be "not accurate", eh?

 

Summary Salary Rankings – All Positions
Showing Positions Near Maximal Value







Rank across 2006

Towns Salary
Ranges
Standing
Position 2005 Min Max Actual To




2006 Max
Fire Lt. 1 41,122 53,664 51,210 95.4%
Police Sgt. 1 46,987 60,507 57,034 94.3%
Police Dispatcher 1 31,387 40,955 38,189 93.2%






Captain (Police?)
52,096 67,725 60,832 89.8%
Deputy Police Chief 1









Fire Paramedic 2 33,342 41,787 40,955 98.0%
Library Director 2 49,615 64,500 62,978 97.6%
Account Clerk 2 29,890 39,000 37,440 96.0%
Town Clerk / Tax Collector 2 49,615 64,500 55,287 85.7%
Assistant Appraiser 2



Fire Captain 3



Fire Fighter 3 33,342 43,493 40,955 94.2%
Parks/Recreation Director 3 42,859 55,717 43,000 77.2%
Selectmen Secretary 3



Police Secretary 3



Police Chief 3 63,323 82,320 73,559 89.4%
Planning Director 3 52,096 67,775 66,303 97.8%
Childrens Librarian 3 28,475 37,149 29,328 78.9%
Deputy Fire Chief 4 49,615 64,500 61,006 94.6%






Assistant Town Administrator
60,307 78,400 70,570 90.0%
Finance Director 4









Town Administrator 4 73,304 95,295 89,542 94.0%
Police Officer 4 38,147 49,774 41,683 83.7%
Deputy Town Clerk/Tax Collector 4 31,387 40,955 34,944 85.3%
Bookkeeper 4 31,387 40,955 32,926 80.4%
Public Works Director 5 57,436 74,666 72,610 97.2%
Fire Chief 5 57,436 74,666 71,863 96.2%
Light Equipment Operator 6



Secretary 7



Code Enforcement Inspector 7 42,859 55,717 53,729 96.4%
Assessing Clerk (Assess. Tech) 7 29,890 39,000 39,000 100.0%
Police Lt. 8 49,615 64,500 58,503 90.7%
Laborer 9 24,086 31,595 27,934 88.4%
Truck Driver 10 25,501 33,467 33,467 100.0%
Landfill / Recycling Attendent 11 24,648 32,344 32,344 100.0%
Assistant Librarian 11 28,475 37,149 29,328 78.9%
Heavy Equipment Operator 12 28,163 36,962 35,173 95.2%
Building and Grounds 13



Librarian 13



General Foreman 14 32,614 42,786 36,005 84.2%
Equipment Mechanic 14 29,598 38,834 33,488 86.2%

 

I will be pleased to receive your retraction at any time.......And remember, this is JUST within Gilford and NO comparison to ANY OTHER TOWN was done in this "study".  And waiving the typing time, it only took about, oh say, 5 minutes to do the actual evaluation.  Fun stuff indeed!

Guess what Readers!  In a little bit, I'll have a bigger and better analysis - it shows what positions had the greatest rise in the Salary Ranges - but you have to  email me or leave a comment if you want me to send it to you! 

The Board of Selectmen is acutely aware of the price of providing highly skilled and dedicated employees to serve the people of this Town and their “guests”.  We have implemented several significant policy changes in response to these escalating costs and we intend to continue balancing the price tag with the quality of service, professionalism, and reliability that the Town of Gilford expects and receives from its municipal employees.

Alec O'Meara said it well in his editorial (paid registration required, excerpt below) in the Gilford Steamer of 10/18/06:

However, one thing has been made clear by just about every member: the committee may feel that salaries are too high, but they hold the actual employees of the town in high regard.

I may have my disagreements with various Town officials, but I do know that the vast majority are looking out for us, the residents.  My problem is not with them, but the financial impacts are now past the noticeable level now.  

We all want the best employees we can get and afford.  And it is that last word that is the most troubling - I think we are at the point, overall, that we may have to let folks seek other places if they wish to receive more - at least for now.  

I need a new car - so let me put it into those terms.  I can afford a Buick.  Nice car, lots of features.  I want a Viper - much better car for my tastes and "needs".  But I cannot afford "the better" (and cannot afford "the best" - any of the European supercars).

I have to settle for 'not the best" because I cannot afford "the best". 

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

Update 1

 I like playing with numbers, and I would be dishonest if I did not show the table that is now at the bottom of this link.  The percentages are computed differently, with a different result for the number of Positions within 10% of max and 15% of max.

I had originally done just a quick percentage of Actual / Max (which has validity).  Now, I tried:

Now, I actually disect the range span (how big is the Salary Range) and normalize the Actual from two ways

  • Subtract the Minimum from the Actual, use that number determine resulting percentage using the Range Span
  • Subtract the Actual from the Max, use that number to determine the resulting percentage using the Range Span

Some may say that this is a more valid approach - my take is that either way, there is still a structural problem with Wages.  I will repeat this at the bottom with the actual table.

-Skip

 

Summary Salary Rankings – All Positions
Showing Positions Near Maximal Value












Rank across 2006 Standing
Normalized
Normalized

Towns Salary Ranges
To Range Actual within Percent of Actual within Percent of
Position 2005 Min Max Actual Max Span Range Range from Range Range from







Min Min Max Max
Fire Lt. 1 41,122 53,664 51,210 95.4% 12,542 10,088 80.43% 2454.4 80.43%
Police Sgt. 1 46,987 60,507 57,034 94.3% 13,520 10,046 74.31% 3473.6 74.31%
Police Dispatcher 1 31,387 40,955 38,189 93.2% 9,568 6,802 71.09% 2766.4 71.09%
Captain (Police?)
52,096 67,725 60,832 89.8% 15,629 8,736 55.90% 6893 55.90%
Fire Paramedic 2 33,342 41,787 40,955 98.0% 8,445 7,613 90.15% 832 90.15%
Library Director 2 49,615 64,500 62,978 97.6% 14,885 13,363 89.77% 1522 89.77%
Account Clerk 2 29,890 39,000 37,440 96.0% 9,110 7,550 82.88% 1560 82.88%
Town Clerk / Tax Collector 2 49,615 64,500 55,287 85.7% 14,885 5,672 38.11% 9213 38.11%
Fire Fighter 3 33,342 43,493 40,955 94.2% 10,150 7,613 75.00% 2537.6 75.00%
Parks/Recreation Director 3 42,859 55,717 43,000 77.2% 12,858 141 1.10% 12717 1.10%
Police Chief 3 63,323 82,320 73,559 89.4% 18,997 10,236 53.88% 8761 53.88%
Planning Director 3 52,096 67,775 66,303 97.8% 15,679 14,207 90.61% 1472 90.61%
Childrens Librarian 3 28,475 37,149 29,328 78.9% 8,674 853 9.83% 7820.8 9.83%
Deputy Fire Chief 4 49,615 64,500 61,006 94.6% 14,885 11,391 76.53% 3494 76.53%
Assistant Town Administrator
60,307 78,400 70,570 90.0% 18,093 10,263 56.72% 7830 56.72%
Town Administrator 4 73,304 95,295 89,542 94.0% 21,991 16,238 73.84% 5753 73.84%
Police Officer 4 38,147 49,774 41,683 83.7% 11,627 3,536 30.41% 8091.2 30.41%
Deputy Town Clerk/Tax Collector 4 31,387 40,955 34,944 85.3% 9,568 3,557 37.17% 6011.2 37.17%
Bookkeeper 4 31,387 40,955 32,926 80.4% 9,568 1,539 16.09% 8028.8 16.09%
Public Works Director 5 57,436 74,666 72,610 97.2% 17,230 15,174 88.07% 2056 88.07%
Fire Chief 5 57,436 74,666 71,863 96.2% 17,230 14,427 83.73% 2803 83.73%
Code Enforcement Inspector 7 42,859 55,717 53,729 96.4% 12,858 10,870 84.54% 1988 84.54%
Assessing Clerk (Assess. Tech) 7 29,890 39,000 39,000 100.0% 9,110 9,110 100.00% 0 100.00%
Police Lt. 8 49,615 64,500 58,503 90.7% 14,885 8,888 59.71% 5997 59.71%
Laborer 9 24,086 31,595 27,934 88.4% 7,509 3,848 51.25% 3660.8 51.25%
Truck Driver 10 25,501 33,467 33,467 100.0% 7,966 7,966 100.00% 0 100.00%
Landfill / Recycling Attendent 11 24,648 32,344 32,344 100.0% 7,696 7,696 100.00% 0 100.00%
Assistant Librarian 11 28,475 37,149 29,328 78.9% 8,674 853 9.83% 7820.8 9.83%
Heavy Equipment Operator 12 28,163 36,962 35,173 95.2% 8,798 7,010 79.67% 1788.8 79.67%
General Foreman 14 32,614 42,786 36,005 84.2% 10,171 3,390 33.33% 6780.8 33.33%
Equipment Mechanic 14 29,598 38,834 33,488 86.2% 9,235 3,890 42.12% 5345.6 42.12%

 

 

Another motion for the BudComm to consider

The following was the written motion that Bob Brent has made for review by the Budget Committee.  As with my Deceleration Formula motion (click here), neither of these have been discussed (should be during the Admin meeting in November).

This would be a formal Letter sent to the Board of Selectmen...

 

October 19, 2006
Board of Selectmen
Gilford, NH

To the Selectman,

The Gilford Budget Committee is concerned with three major areas of the budget for 2007:

  • Salaries
  • Benefits
  • Colas/PBA

 

With respect to salaries, we would like to see this year’s total growth at no more than 3.5% (COLA and PBA). Additionally, this should not be added to the base wage due to the compounding effect of doing so year after year. Instead, these increases should be awarded in lump sum amount. We are also concerned with comparative salary positions of town employees as they compare to the 32 towns in a recent study completed by the Budget Committee.

Benefits should accrue at a lower rate. As the costs of health insurance continue to escalate, employees should be asked to shoulder a larger portion of the costs associated with their individual plans. This is the reality faced by many people working outside of government. The taxpayer should not be asked to shoulder the entire burden.

We would be remiss if we did not look at this part of the budget. These are the largest items within the budget. They are also growing the fastest. We need to balance the needs of the town against the needs of the taxpayer.

We understand that the Budget Committee does not set policy. It is in that spirit that we submit this letter. Please view it as a formal document that, while respecting the powers and obligations of the Board of Selectmen, conveys to them how deep our concern is with the rapidly-accelerating growth of taxes, most of which is generated by the above-noted areas within the budget.

 

Respectfully Submitted,


Dick Hickock, Chairman
Budget Committee

 

How To Make A Budget

How To Make a Budget

You wouldn't find this on the back of a Betty Crocker cake mix!

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Who plays on second – the budget or the tax?

From an academic point of view, the chicken came first - the egg is a product of the process.  So when you review the budget – is it in terms of what you have collected?  Do your top 5 priorities comprise a majority of expenses?

  1. Start your budget process with a review of last year’s budget.  Label the top 5 expenses and compare them to stated goals – do they match?
  2. Know your income for the last 5 years, and adjust next year’s projections as needed.
  3. Know your goals for the coming year - commit the funds accordingly.


Now the tough question – are you willing to adjust expenses, or are you looking to expand taxes?   Do you believe govt should create a productive environment for individuals, or do you believe  individuals should contribute to greater govt?

From a budget point of view, decide what is important as a community (prioritize by voting), then raise funds to accomplish it.  Please note I specifically said "important as a community", not "important to the community".  The "as" promotes teamwork and lifting each other up (democracy); the "to" implies someone/s decides what is best for the community (dictatorship).

I propose that all taxes have term limits - short term limits. Of course, I support term limits for  politicians too.  Taxes should be ear-marked for a specific purpose, and auditable so at least 90%  reach the intended purpose.  If you've got more than 10% swallowed up in "administrative-ness",  you're doing something wrong.  Taxes shouldn't live forever, and neither should politicians.

This isn’t a one-size-fits-all issue.  100% democracy isn’t right for all people, and 100% capitalism  only makes the rich wealthier.  Where does your community fit on the scale of anarchy to oligarchy?  Which comes first – the budget or the tax.  We all know who plays second!

 

October 27, 2006

Saturday Radio Alert!

Don't forget--------------"Meet the New Press" on 1490 WEMJ Saturday from 2 to 4 PM.
Schedule so far:
John Hawkins- RightWingNews.com- congressional election predictions and discussion
Ken Mehlman conference call (RNC chair)
State Senate candidate Jim Fitzgerald
Six-Apart Moveable Type designer to discuss upcoming blog technologies
Phone calls
Thoughtful discussion.
phone 527-1490
emails as announced on program.
It's not your grandpoppy's radio show!

October 25, 2006

2 Forbidden Words: Wages & Benefits

Here is yet another letter from an informed reader. Please feel free to submit letters to us via the contact button to the left, or post a comment on the bottom of any posting. DL
.
Editor, GilfordGrok.com,
.
Recent articles and letters have made me realize where Gilfords taxes are going. In two words, forbidden at town budget meetings, "wages and benefits". Many town and school employees are at the top of the pay scale for over 30 comparable towns. But taxpayers average incomes are down in the middle of that range. Don’t forget that many of these high paid employees are from Gilford therefore increasing the taxpayers average income. By continually funding these huge pay increases we are only making the big gap between taxpayers and town employees incomes even larger. These increases are far more, sometimes double, than the raise people receive in the private sector. We need to eliminate these raises by establishing a "cap" on the positions that are so far above the average. Even better, eliminate some nonessential positions.
.
The last 3 year school contract had an unbelievable 8% increase every year. The latest one is, "only", over 4% but, we pay a higher percentage of their benefits. Meaning that the amount can go up within the contract. The town has requested an increase of 4.1% plus a 1.5%. Do the math, that’s a 5.6% raise while already being higher than most, if not all, of their counterparts in over 30 other towns. They need a big fat dose of "Reality"!
.
I would like to think that some of them are aware that this has to be brought under control. People in the private sector wouldn’t pass up a raise. But, they rarely set or recommend the amount of it such as in the house and senate. Or in this case the Gilford administration and superintendent. Do any of them have a conscience? Or are they so arrogant that they believe they are worth so much more than their peers? It would appear that both the superintendent, with a mega five year contract, and the administrator, who doesn’t want to talk about "wages and salaries", are in this frame of mind. Gilford can’t afford this attitude running our town!
.
Doug Plummer Gilford
The "natives are restless" indeed...

From a soldier

Although this is not directly related to the Town, elections are coming up.  It is obvious that Doug and I are conservatives - thus, I am re-posting this from NRO.

(H/T: NRO)

One Soldier's Opinion [Stanley Kurtz]

Here's a letter from a soldier who is also a conservative.  It's just one opinion, and we certainly cannot and should not assume that it's shared by the military as a whole.  Still, it's well worth a read:

Sir, you are spot-on about not sitting out this election. Many of us in uniform are anxious about this election. Anyone can read and see from the news reports that the enemy here in Afghanistan and in Iraq is cranking up their efforts to produce many more American and allied casualties before the election, during the supposed holy month of Ramadan . We fear the enemy will be greatly emboldened if the party of cut-and-run wins and will crank up even worst offensives in the hope of our withdrawing all support of both manpower and materiel to our democratically-elected allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, just like our weak politicians did after the 1974 elections to our South Vietnamese ally.

We conservatives don t have the luxury of sitting out this election, because if the wrong politicians are elected, they will cut off all funding for military operations in Iraq, dooming our fledgling, democratically-elected ally to death and dismemberment. Everyone around the world, from the caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan to the palaces in North Korea and Iran will be watching this election, this choice before the American people. Will we stand up for Liberty and continue to support our fledgling, democratically-elected allies of Iraq and Afghanistan, or will we abandon them, like our weak politicians did after the 1974 elections?

The choice is yours to make, I pray along with every fighting man and woman in uniform today, that you will make the right one and not give up on us. We will win any war you commit us to, as you have repeatedly done so in 2002 and in 2004, but we need you, the American voter, to secure our rear while we continue to fight abroad those that attacked us on September 11th. Don t give up on us, because we will never give up on you. Remember only you, the American voter, can lose a war by enabling the weak politicians to deny us victory. May God Bless you all and our great Nation.

Sincerely,
A Soldier in Afghanistan

The bold at the end is my emphasis......consider it.

 

October 23, 2006

Letter to the Editor: Bureaucrats Promote Spending

GilfordGrok happily prints letters that are signed and relevant...
October 18, 2006
To the editor, GilfordGrok:
.
Bureaucrats Promote Spending
.
Last week a letter writer was chastising State Representative Jim Fitzgerald for his statements regarding wasteful spending by bureaucrats. Ultimately she asks the question, “Does it mean that if you’re a state employee, that you’re fiscally irresponsible and not protective of taxpayers dollars?” I’d like to ask the letter writer a question. Would you support a cost cutting measure that would still provide quality services if it meant eliminating your job? We taxpayers hear lots of lip service about reducing the huge bloated bureaucracy but it NEVER happens.
.
The letter writer needs to look no further than her own home town to see the abuse of taxpayer dollars. On the backs of the Gilford taxpayers, the over paid superintendent just cut “himself” a very nice deal to secure his welfare for the rest of his life. I think if you add it all up, with salary, COLAs, gold encrusted benefits and all; Gilford taxpayers may have just funded their first millionaire!   Please tell me how this expense adds any value to the education of a child? Let’s not forget that he has an assistant with a nice salary as well. Shouldn’t our priorities be directed to the actual education of our children and not creating a retirement program for over paid superintendents?
.
I do have encouragement though. The overpaid superintendent did provide us with a nice letter a few weeks back, stating that a quality education has more to do with the child’s social economical situation than the quality of the education being delivered. Brilliant! Since we have no “poor” children in Gilford then we have NO need for expensive teachers or overpaid superintendents.
.
We also have the police chief correctly pointing out that sharing our police dog is perfectly fine because Gilford receives mutual aid as compensation. Brilliant! No need to buy a ladder truck because we can use one from another town.
.
The Gilford library has a great new program that allows stay at home moms (i.e.: the wealthy) to come to the library with their children for fun events. As caring members of their community these moms could manage events, participate in caring for the library and co-ordinate their own activities thus eliminating the need for highly paid directors (of 32 similar towns, Gilford’s Library Director is the highest paid). What better example could these moms possibly provide for their children?
.
Ms. Letter Writer, do you seriously think that the above ideas would be considered? No, because it doesn’t seem to matter whether we’re discussing town, state or Federal spending, the bureaucrats will not only protect their jobs but actually grow them.
.
At least on the state level we can count on representatives like Jim Fitzgerald who are not life long bureaucrats and can look at things more objectively. 
Terry Stewart
Gilford, NH

October 21, 2006

Saturday 2-4PM WEMJ 1490AM: Meet the New Press

Meet the New Press- Saturday October 21, 2006 **SHOWTIME UPDATE**

With the arrival of Pat's new baby, Grace Kathyryn Hynes, he bows out of the program this week, leaving host duties to me and Skip.  Rumor has it he will be in the house! (studio)
.
First off we will discuss some local issues, including why the Budget Committee is NOT the Grinch that's stealing Christmas and what MUST happen if Gilford is ever to get a handle on property taxes. Join in at 527-1490.
.
GilfordGrok blog got you down? Or has it riled you up? Energized you? The Friday Union Leader ran a story about a Selectman/blogger in Milford, NH who's got some in that town's government feeling rather uneasy these days. The blogosphere is changing politics at every level of government- including the local level. I blogged the story over at GraniteGrok. We'll talk about it during the program.
.
We will have, in studio, Gilford School Board member Margo Weeks, to discuss the fallen soldier memorial project that the school's students have taken up. Fundraising is ongoing. Margo, like Skip and myself, is a huge supporter of our men and women in the military. This is a fantastic project that is underway right here in Gilford.
.
Liz Mair of GOPProgress.com is blogging her way through New England covering the upcoming US national elections, especially the "hot" seats in play. She joins us in studio to talk politics and blogging.
.
Other topics will be added as we sort through them between now and showtime. I'd like to discuss my Thursday Daily Sun column about the game of Tag being banished from the school playground if time permits.
.
Check back for updates. Remember, tune in to 1490 on the AM radio dial Saturday at 2:00 till 4:00 in the afternoon. Phone calls are welcome at 527-1490.
.
Don't forget to visit the hosting blogs of Meet the New Press at GraniteGrok and AnkleBitingPundits.

One possible way to constrain taxes....

Well now, I certainly cannot let Doug have all the fun, can I?

Preface:  as a member of the Budget Committee, I have only one advocacy group - the taxpayers of Gilford.  Anything I do or say will always have THEIR best interests in mind and heart.  Yes, Gilford needs to spend money and fund city services.  But the bottom line for me is this - does the budget present the best value (in terms of service AND cost) possible?  If not, what can I do to make that happen?

Last night at the end of the Budget Committee, I submitted a letter containing a motion that I believe will assist in slowing down the growth of salaries, thus trying to slow the budget down?

Why the salaries?  As it stands now, the salaries drive the majority of the Gilford's budget.  As of tonight, the budget commitee is not talking about salaries until a November meeting.  That will happen when the admin / personnel meeting happens at the Budget Committee.  Remember, the public can attend and listen - but only comment when recognized by the Chair, Dick Hickok (decorum requested, please).

Anyways, here is the motion - and I will have further comments on it after the break:

 

 

To: Dick Hickock, Chairman, Gilford Budget Committee

From: Skip Murphy, member, Gilford Budget Committee

Date: 10/19/06

Subject: Observations, and a Motion

            Observation:

Upon being included in the Wage Comparison Subcommittee of the Budget Committee, I undertook the effort that resulted in the compilation of the Wage and Position Comparision study that ranged across the 32 towns that fit Gilford's year round demographics (populations of 5,000 – 9,999). Given that, and the surprising result that out of the 39 positions reviewed, 25 of our positions were in the top 5 in Maximal Wage range, I feel that Gilford needs to do more than just to continue discussions of this situation. Action must be taken to fix this structural problem with the Salary portion of Gilford's Budget.

                Motion:

I make the motion that the Budget Committee constitute a new subcommittee whose sole purpose will be to create a formula that will slow (and then stabilize) the rate of growth of each position' salary range within the appropriate grouping of our demographic.

                        The make up of the subcommittee shall include:

  • The Selectmen representative to the Budget Committee
  • A member of the Wage Comparison Subcommittee that best understands the underlying data
  • An at large member of the Budget Committee

 

The result of applying this deceleration formula will be to have each position arrive at a predetermined standing point within its demographic within a given amount of time. It should be obvious that this is not an across the board deceleration percentage; each position will be targeted with its own deceleration formula. If done correctly, it will also be sufficiently robust to help raise those positions that the Selectmen deem “too low” (i.e., turn it into a “negative” deceleration percentage).

While the he Board of Selectmen will be responsible for setting the policy of where each position ranking should be and the amount of time it should take to arrive there, it will be job of the subcommittee to derive the actual function.

                Example:


The position of Police Sgt. ranked ranks first among Maximal Salary Range across all 32 towns. If the Selectmen decide that this position should rank no higher than 10th overall within a span of 5 years, its deceleration formula will produce, on a yearly basis, a percentage that would slow the rate of salary growth for that position such that its Maximal Salary value will rank 10th in 5 years.

Each year, the rise in the salary range would be (COLA + Merit, assuming for now that both are then included in that position's salary as opposed to a lump sum payment). To this computed value, its deceleration formula would be applied, yielding a “Deceleration Percentage”. Thus, the overall effect on the salary growth would be ((COLA+Merit) – Deceleration%).

A concrete example - Assume the following:

Salary $50,000

COLA 3%

Merit 1.3%

Deceleration 2% (from the yet to be derived formula)

(50,000 * 0.043) – (50,000 * 0.02)

(2,150) – (1,000)

Thus, instead of a rise in salary of $2,150, a lowered rate of $1,000 would be in force.

There should never be a cut in salary resulting from application of the deceleration formula, only a slowing in the rise of that position's salary, thus allowing for a “soft landing” into the slot predetermined by the Board of Selectmen.


Now, I have had a couple of folks call to ask some questions, including Michael Kitch of the Laconia Daily Sun (yes, there will be an article in tomorrow's paper).  So let's do a micro-FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions):

Isn't what the Motion and the Study talk about, clash?

No, not really.  The Study (click on Statistics on the right to see the tables) talks about salary ranges.  The Motion speaks to actual salaries.  One doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to see that an actual salary is going to be between the lowest end of a salary range and its highest.

What is the intent of the Motion?

Exactly what it says - to gently bring our salaries into line with respect to the income of Gilford's residents.  A soft landing, as it were.

If only one, or even a few of the positions ranked high, this probably wouldn't be needed.  But when the overwhelming number of the Town's positions are high (see here), there is an obvious problem if you are funding those salaries with your taxes.

But this will cut salaries!

No, there will be no cuts.  The only thing that this does is to slow how fast salaries are rising. 

But what about salaries at the low end of the range?

This is a motion to create the formula - I do not have that formula already done.  Obviously if a salary is near the bottom of its range, that must be accounted for within the step program.

So this is one formula for everyone, right?

Same idea, but as many "deceleration" percentages as there are positions.  Each position will be evaluated individually each year.   

Isn't this dependant on what the other Towns do?

Yes it does.  But remember, we are trying to give the Board of Selectmen a tool that will help them adjust salaries IF THEY SEE FIT.  Over time, pretty much salaries tend to go up.  There is one assumption here - salaries over time go up.  Same with the salary ranges.  The idea is that other towns salary ranges will continue to grow faster as Gilford's slows down, allowing a sufficient number of them to "pass" Gilford's ranges to satisfy the Selectmen's policy settings.

So the Selectment have to use this, right?

No, they do not.  While the Budget Committee goes through the process of evaluating the budget and then presents it to the Town, it is strictly advisory.  Same here with the Selectmen - they are certainly free to accept or reject this as they see fit.

So we will lose our best people?  Won't they go somewhere else?

As in the private sector, the best are always looking to better themselves.  Some may leave because of this, some may leave just because the opportunity is better regardless of this.

The question I ask is this - when does it become too much, even for someone who everyone agrees is the best?  We are not a big city, or even a large town - just as in our household budgets, we have to make choices.  When it comes time for a new car, I'd love to get a Cadillac, Mercedes, or some other luxury car - but can I afford it AND a really nice new set of computers for my family, and a really nice destination vacation?

No, and the taxpayers are telling me, Doug, and other members of the BudComm that something has to give.  We can nickel and dime every single department budget and cause nothing but bad feelings, but the salaries is where we can make a real difference in the budget.

 

October 20, 2006

Gilford generously donates $86,212.00 to charitable organizations

The first cuts have been made to the proposed municipal budget by the Budget Committee. To hear it reported, you would think that Gilford has eliminated all charitable spending. This is absolutely untrue. The property taxpayers of Gilford will  continue to give, only less, and the list of non-governmental agencies (insulated from the scrutiny of local oversight) receiving largesse will get smaller. 
.
Thursday night, the budget committee eliminated a total of $13,849.00 from the so-called "outside agencies" portion of the budget, leaving a total of $88,599.00 of taxpayer monies donated to charitable organizations.
.
Included in the funding is Lakes Region Community Health & Hospice- $23,500, Lakes Region Family Services-$3,400, Community Action Program-$7947, Youth Services Bureau-$37,024, Lakes Region Planning Commision-$7,914, as well as funding for the NH Humane Society. Does this sound stingy to you? Add another $64,000 for the welfare portion of the budget and you should conclude that the property taxpayers of Gilford are, in fact, awfully generous.
.
Remember, the federal and state governments spend gobs and gobs of money on health and human services already. All who currently pay taxes other than property already contribute. Where is it written that we need yet another layer of government funding? How much more will the social-services industrial complex be allowed to take from our wallets?
.
Oh, and those of you who absolutely feel the Red Cross needs your money that bad, go to the Belknap Mall- there is a new Red Cross center there where you can make an immediate donation- free from the costs of the government middleman... Nobody's stopping you.

October 19, 2006

Saturday radio program 2PM-4PM 1490 WEMJ

The lineup for this Saturday on "Meet the New Press, hosted by me, Skip, and Pat Hynes, is as follows:
UPDATE COMING THIS EVENING!!!
.
John Hawkins, creator of the top blog RightWingNews. He is the "top dog" of the conservative blogosphere. His blog is a real, for profit business. We will talk about that, along with two of his recent postings- Will the GOP lose the House? the top 20 Dem US House seat opportunities and the double-standard that gets applied to the two political parties with regards to sex "scandals" along with current events as they might be.
.
Also, we will have, in studio, Gilford School Board member Margo Weeks, to discuss the fallen soldier memorial project that the school's students have taken up. Fundraising is ongoing. Margo, like Skip and myself, is a huge supporter of our men and women in the military. This is a fantastic project that is underway right here in Gilford.
.
Listener phone calls & other topics.
.
We have several other potential guests that have not been confirmed as of this posting, which will be continuously updated till show time. Check back often for updates.

Letter to the editor

The following was submitted for publication. GilfordGrok considers all signed pieces for posting consideration. We reserve the right to publish anonymous items if the author is identified and known to either Skip or me. Submissions can be made through the contacts buttons to the upper left. DL 
To the Editor, GilfordGrok.com,
Gilford needs to cut taxes and cap salaries! It’s no wonder why our taxes are out of control. The recent September 22, Daily Sun article says it all. 23 of 39 comparable positions are in the top four out of 32 similar towns. My research of several comparable schools in the area shows that we have the highest pay scale. This is climbing higher with some of the highest pay raises, and among the best health care plans, in the latest three year contract. Even after the previous three year 8% annual increase. The actions of the sc