GilfordGrok

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.

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

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.

Posted by Doug at 08:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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 

Posted by Skip at 11:30 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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%

 

 

Posted by Skip at 10:51 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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

 

Posted by Skip at 08:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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!

 

Posted by The IT Observer at 08:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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

Posted by Doug at 09:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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]

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

 

Posted by Skip at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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

Posted by Doug at 09:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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

Posted by Doug at 03:28 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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 10^th 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 10^th 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.

 

Posted by Skip at 08:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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 school board in June is appalling. To extend the Superintendents, high priced, five year contract. This , after we voted against even having one in 1998. Didn’t we leave the old SAU to save money? Now we have created our own over paid bureaucracy. The decades long rhetoric about staying competitive is a farce. All towns use when bargaining for higher pay. Gilford used it even while already being at the top. We are now the "Bench Mark". As when I went to Gilford quite some years ago, many teachers complain to the students about their low pay. It was as disgraceful then as it is now. One senior class teacher recently offered extra credit to his 18 year old students to vote for the new contract.

.

  Go to www.greatschools.net under "research and compare" for other information the school board probably doesn’t want taxpayers to see. Our middle and high school has the lowest student to full time equivalent (teacher) FTE in the area. Combine this with being the highest paid, and Gilford's teachers are probably the best compensated teachers and administrators in the state. Yet the test scores don’t come close to reflecting this. Of coarse the $uperintendent always has a smooth excuse for this. Is this good for our children to see the highest position in the system questioning the validity of the test that are given nation wide? Laconia recently eliminated several administrative positions. Gilford added a whole new middle school administration along with curriculum staff. With all of these additional top pay year round positions, one has to wonder about the necessity of them. It is generally the same number of students and teachers handled by two thirds of the current administration. Lets not overlook all the other unnecessarily added position. Why do we need a third nurse for the same number of students, still in only two buildings? Or did a top administrators family member need a position? Multi-tasking shouldn’t just be for us poor souls in the "private sector"!

.

  This attributes to why Gilford spends $30 + million a year, while other comparable sized towns spend $15-20 million. Throwing money at this doesn’t result in higher test scores, or better employees. We give merit raises to town employees, not for exceptional performance, but just for being on the payroll. Then we have a teacher who repeatedly assaults a 14 year old student in the school and in the school parking lot undetected, or was it just unreported? Do you really believe All the other, top paid professional, teachers were unaware of this predator? And we trust, and pay, these people to protect our children? Or is this a case of not wanting to "blow the whistle" on a fellow union employee? Lets not forget this teacher is the son of the aforementioned mentioned top administrator. These are two perfect examples of why many companies in the "private sector", prohibit employing relatives. As in the church scandal, the safety of our children is being compromised for the sake of not wanting to be overlooked for promotions and, or, bad publicity.

.
Jim Cookman
Overwhelmed Gilford Taxpayer

Posted by Doug at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

a vocal minority has persisted in arguing that the GOP, as the party of the rich, isn’t the best vehicle for a Christian political witness. “There are 2,000 Bible verses that deal with caring for the poor,” says Balmer. “Jesus never mentioned abortion.”

.

The outcome of this debate may hinge on younger evangelicals, who have grown up in an era when the Religious Right was a fact of political life rather than a new innovation. “Some are less embedded in the subculture and will be less likely to hear the political cues,” says Laura Olson, a Clemson University political science professor who has studied the evolution of evangelical political involvement. “They will be no less committed to pro-family issues, but they’ll say, ‘Let’s talk about poverty, hunger, and the environment.’” Olson points out that even prominent liberal evangelicals—such leaders as Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo—oppose abortion and hold orthodox views about homosexuality.

.

Jessica Echard, executive director of Eagle Forum, is a young Christian conservative who believes the social issues will remain paramount. “I don’t see the evangelical base energized by these new issues,” she says. “They care about babies, marriage, and what their children see on TV.”

Some changes may be inevitable, however. “As the number of evangelicals has grown, they have become more like the society around them,” says Olson. “That will lead to a diversity of opinion on a lot of issues.” Peter Brown, the assistant director of the Quinnipiac Polling Institute, agrees that on many issues “evangelicals are in line with the rest of mainstream America.” Yet Brown doesn’t foresee a real partisan shift among evangelical voters. “People vote based on values and comfort level,” he says. “There’s no evidence evangelicals are losing that comfort level with the Republicans just over the environment.”

Posted by Doug at 07:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, we're late.....this past Saturday was the inagural broadcast of "Meet The New Press" - a new radio show that had its debut on WEMJ AM1490 from 2-4pm. In retrospect, we got so carried away with being ready for the show that we forgot to let you folks know about it! 

Er, misteak(!) noted and will be corrected!

Three of us are behind this new show - Doug, myself, and Pat Hynes of AnkeBiting Pundits.com.  The intent of the show is to combine the best of what is going on in the blogosphere, and what makes it work.  In two hours, we are going to have topics of interest that come from blogs like from all over: politics, current events, guest hosts and inteviews and anything that callers want to talk about (and we do thank Alan, John, and the others for calling in!)

I'd love to say that the first show was a 10 - let's say that we have some room for improvement given some of the technical problems.  We do appreciate your patience as the engineers of WEMJ continue to rebuild the studio for us, and we do thank them (A LOT!) for incorporating a lot of the suggestions that we have had over the last couple of weeks.  Per normal, there are still gremlins in the system (patience to our guests for bearing with us as we tried to estastablish phone contact with them.  However, we did notice, and appreciate, the staff of WEMJ for calling in more and more senior level engineers on their time off to come in and keep us on the air!

ALSO!

Podcasting will be coming to all three blogs (AnkleBitingPundits, GraniteGrok, and GilfordGrok) - we are digitally capturing the broadcast and will be chopping up the show into more manageable chunks over the next few weeks - I'll put up an announcement as we get closer.

During the week, we'll put up the topics for next Saturday - so take this as a request and let us know what YOU want to hear! 

After the jump are a couple of pictures - again, more will be forthcoming over the next few weeks!

And for those that caught the show, we thank you.  For those that we forgot to tell - we apologize!  And for those that want to participate - leave comments here, send us email now or during the show, or call during the show: 603-527-1490! 

-Skip

 Here's Doug, smiling to belie the nervousness underneath the calm exterior.

 

And some more!

 

 Meanwhile, while Doug and I have faces for radio, Pat shows why he's been on TV and we haven't.

 

Jarrod, our broadcast engineer watching over the dials, switches, and faders, and the guy you'll talk to if you call in!

And of course, NOW you can see what I meant that WEMJ is still rebuilding the studio for us - the lovely kitchen table (which actually worked out quite well) and the wiring behind me.  From left going clockwise - Skip (with the grey hair), Pat (love the cap), and Doug (finally calmed down).

 

 

 

Posted by Skip at 07:08 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Budget Committee

Section 32:16

    32:16 Duties and Authority of the Budget Committee. – In any town which has adopted the provisions of this subdivision, the budget committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

    I. To prepare the budget as provided in RSA 32:5, and if authorized under RSA 40:14-b, a default budget under RSA 40:13, IX(b) for submission to each annual or special meeting of the voters of the municipality, and, if the municipality is a town, the budgets of any school district or village district wholly within the town, unless the warrant for such meeting does not propose any appropriation.

    II. To confer with the governing body or bodies and with other officers, department heads and other officials, relative to estimated costs, revenues anticipated, and services performed to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee. It shall be the duty of all such officers and other persons to furnish such pertinent information to the budget committee.

    III. To conduct the public hearings required under RSA 32:5, I.

    IV. To forward copies of the final budgets to the clerk or clerks, as required by RSA 32:5, VI, and, in addition, to deliver 2 copies of such budgets and recommendations upon special warrant articles to the respective governing body or bodies at least 20 days before the date set for the annual or special meeting, to be posted with the warrant.

Source. 1993, 332:1, eff. Aug. 28, 1993. 2004, 219:4, eff. Aug. 10, 2004.

Posted by Doug at 05:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Analytically Speaking...by Skip Murphy

When is “enough” adequate? When is “enough” sufficient, and where is the line at which “enough” is “not enough”? When do we know that everyone is being served correctly, or not enough? How does one make a system that by definition is a “one size fits all”, flexible enough to fit all needs? Who benefits, and who does not in all this too (if we plow ahead or do nothing)?

No, this isn't about welfare, Medicaid, or a host of other things. It is a rant about education funding at the State level for those of us at the local level. And it isn't specifically about education (although it should be). In the time that has passed since the Clairmont decision, spending has soared but nothing has changed and nothing has been settled. Why?

A few reasons, with one being politics, plain and simple. Add in money and taxes, you have issues that few politicians are willing to look towards where the 10 foot poles are kept. All of rigamarole stems around taxes – who pays, and who receives. And add in fear, for going up against one the best political machines in the country – the NEA - is often the kiss of death. And our stereotypical New England Yankee stubbornness doesn't help either.

To this jaundiced eye, funding is perhaps all that will be discussed. All because those in charge refuse to either consider or answer the real reason, the most fundamental question in this debate. That simple question not yet focused upon by our “leaders” is “how can one fund an adequate education without specifying what an adequate education is”? And why aren't you folks answering this?

Yes, the debate needs to turn to an adequacy not in terms of money spent, but to one of student achievement. What seems to be going on in NH is a constant “cart before the horse” scenario. This is akin to approving budgets without knowing what the budget is to accomplish – what are the observable metrics? Last week I posted on GilfordGrok.com that 40% of Ohio's high schoolers going on to college have to undergo remedial classes before actually taking the “real college” classes. With the massive amounts of money spent in Ohio, did those students receive an adequate education?

Budgets say yes, results say no.

Why can't we here in NH learn from that harsh example?  When is someone going to have the political courage to stand up to the “connected” and the “powerful” and simply say “Here is the metric - when a child reaches the end of each grade, this is what we expect the average child to have learned in the areas of reading, math, science, US history and civics, world history and geography, foreign language, physical education, art, and music.”? In short, back to basics – academic standards across the State. Only then can we ever begin to work it backwards (or forwards, depending on your viewpoint) to answer “and this is cost”.

The ability to find, ask, and keep the most fundamental question front most is often the ability to make a project work, or not. The “basic” question approach applies in many different situations, and I am surprised that many people don't put it up front and center more often. Or that it is so easily forgotten during any given process.

This type of question applies not just to educational ones, but to a situation in Gilford, too. In fact, I've asked it twice already, and will repeat it again as a public service for ears that either missed it or didn't want to hear it. Or, to put it into more kindly terms, those ears whose brains have raced forward to the “next things” without hearing “the first things”.

I have seen the newspaper reports about the Facility Planning Committee talking about ground soils, and this type of truss and that kind of material, energy efficiency, and setting down proposed floor plans, moving the well, moving the generator. That the lifespan was to be 30 years. I've read about getting the story out to the public better, that better marketing is needed. ALL these are important tasks that are absolutely necessary to populate a real good project plan.

I assume that most in Gilford agree that the Police need more space. Still, the fundamental question remains when the next proposal is brought forth, we will be able to ask “How do we know that it will be big enough, or is it too small?” and that everything else being proposed stems from answering that basic question.

Posted by Skip at 08:39 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have been emailing with another Gilfordite, and that person has agreed to let me post the substance of our conversation.  This person's observations span the column and my comments on it are the shorter tabbed ones (opposite of what we normally do here)..  Just decided to be different for a change....

-Skip

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

 

Think about this too.  This is especially true when large amounts of land are off limits either by regulation (e.g. each house should be on X number of acres) or by conservation.  Less land available will drive up property values if that community is deemed "desirable".  Please note that while such things might seem to be the right things now, they may indeed be parts of the reason why your children may not be able to buy a house in Gilford when the time comes - just look at CA for examples of this happening now.

 

It is the Law of Unintended Consequences 

To actually answer your question, it really is one for the town at large.  What kind of community do we wish to be?  Broadening the tax base to lower my taxes could be a good thing, but at what rate and by interesting which kinds of businesses? 

My take?  I like it here - more "clean" manufacturers would be good, but not number that I see flying over Chicago where all you see is blocks and blocks of one and two story factories.  I'll wimp out and say keeping things in proportion to what we have now is not a bad thing. 

The marketplace forces companies to operate at "best practices" levels; if they do not, their goods or services are either generally overpriced or the company is not returning value to the owners in the forms of lowered profits or growth.  The key is value - and there are metrics measuring that across almost every industry. 

The problem that I see here in Gilford is a lack of how to measure that value - how do we, as taxpayers, know that we are receiving the best value for our taxes?  We have a high budget in relationship to the other towns in our demographic segment; our per student cost is well above state average.  I see nothing in the media about the flip side to the cost - value metrics; I see nothing from the town departments that show that they are offering objective measurements that show we are deriving value. 

I am NOT saying we don't - but it is all SUBJECTIVE, and not objective right now.  So I make the claim that we do not know if we are, or we are not.  The only thing I can say is that from the tables I've put up here, the town employees are receiving very good wages relative to other towns our size. While that is valuable to the employees, how do we taxpayers know that this is a measurably good value for us?

I really disagree with this statement, as that time period is not a good indication of the biggest part of our taxes - education.  And while I can see a blip upwards for the Police department, what are the best practices of other towns seeing the same thing - does Sturgis ramp up its full time year round department just for its bike week?  Or Daytona, or any other city where populations shoot up for a short period of time? 

Governmenta policies play a role in what industries will settle where within a town and how quickly - zoning and politics.  And sometimes, the politics is played by the company. 

In this case, I do not have an answer for you. 

Please remember, these are private properties and the owners may have their own ideas and timelines in which to do something with those properties.  They may choose to do absolutely nothing. That is their right and their privilege as long as no laws or codes are violated.  

Again, it depends on what the town as a whole desires Gilford to be.  I'll be honest - I do not know if we even have a Master Plan - the document that would answer your question.  Ask someone at Town Hall if such a thing it exists.  If so, let us know!

Not quite so fast!  Just because assessments go up does NOT mean that the tax rate goes down.  Look at what I wrote in the GIlford Steamer - the third leg is the budget.  All three (assessments, tax rates, and budgets) interact with each other.  Higher assessments do not automatically mean higher taxes; lower tax rates can mean higher tax burdens even coupled with higher assessments if the Town and School budgets go up.

All other things being equal, you are correct! 

This is what I am hearing too, and is very bothersome.  Start calling your Selectmen and bother them about this! 

Funny is not the word I would use......suspicious would be one, though..... While nothing wrong may be happening, better explanations and more transparancy in the process may well be overdue. 

That part of what a blog is all about! 

I Think I Already Have! 

You are NOT the only one bringing this up and thinking that things are perhaps fair in some places and unfair in others.  In fact, you are the fourth person in a week to have brought this up. Anecdotally, I think I've heard enough, and read enough, that those that are annoyed (and beyond) ought to start demanding answers 

Actually, look at the RSAs!  I do believe that there are rules in place but as you have seen, things can be "subjective" instead of "objective".  Very powerful differences.

Doug: I think what you have outlined in your listing of current const. projects illustrates what I have oft contended- that Gilford has a slow, yet steady increase in taxable properties, that should be able to sustain normal inflationary budget growth. Our taxes should be STABLE, not necessarily reduced  by any large measure. The only way to make this happen is through fiscally conservative budgeting and seeking maximun value for our dollars. I do not like the idea of some "Shifting" of property tax burdens more heavily towards commercial properties- esp. not equipment and fixtures- this was a disaster for Berlin's paper mill industry. I'm all for controlled tax-base expansion.

Thanks for your thoughts. The exchange of ideas is always my  goal in politics.

. 

Doug: Another thought- while the salaries may not be equal to the private sector, the benefits far surpass them.
 

Doug: I absolutely favor tax base expansion and agree the assessments are probably biased- I have always said that if taxes were stabilized, the assessment issue would melt away. In a hyper-increasing atomosphere, this issue gets "hot." The wry cynic in me believes that while people are busy looking at how their friends and neighbors are assessed, the big spenders are doing just that while everyone's otherwise occupied...
 
Thanks for taking the time for this exchange of ideas.
 
Oh, if the word got out that Gilford had low property taxes, businesses would find their way to us, I think.

.

Doug: don't think a paid position in local gov't cuts it (at least on the town level) The county has an economic development council, but unfortunately, I don't see them doing much- too busy giving themselves awards and such. That is where we should focus. Get them to do the job they are paid to do. The current director only wants movie studios- we need someone with a greater sense of reality in that position.
 
Change realtors? I don't think you'll find anyone that would do a better job than who does it now- but maybe that is worth  a try anyway.
 
I think advertising a stable taxed, well-run town would attract more business- oh, and a planning board with a more positive approach to business and its needs wouldn't hurt, either.

Posted by Skip at 08:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Our School District Superintendent, Dr. DeMinico, has written yet another missive trying to downplay the use of standardized testing in school systems. It can be seen here at the Laconia Citizen (registration required), Laconia Daily Sun (not online), or at the Gilford Steamer (paid subscription).

High Stakes Testing: Are We Leaving Student-Learning Behind? 

Dr. DeMinico starts off with hypothesis:

Who could argue with the altruistic goal that public schools are places where all students should be successful? And how does our recent focus on high-stakes tests, mandated by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), advance that goal?

These two ideas, i.e. the success for all students and high stakes testing, in today's ongoing dialogue about public education, may well be in conflict. In anticipation of the reauthorization of NCLB, herein are several thoughts to consider.

My take on this is that only those of a liberal bent and from within the insulated walls of the educational establishment would consider these two items diametrically opposed.  Here, the straw man is set up, to be later knocked over.

This is not the first time that he has advanced the notion that standardized testing is not the best to consider, but we will address that later.

Does the Test Assess What Students Are Actually Learning in Schools?

Students from generally higher social-economic status (SES) communities tend to score at higher levels on standardize tests, such as the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) than students who come from lower SES communities. This notion is consistently supported by research of the past several decades, and is reflected in the recent NECAP test results in New Hampshire. Just look online at the New Hampshire Department of Education website and compare higher SES cities and towns such as Amherst, Hanover and Bedford, with those of lower SES, such as Claremont, Pittsfield and Franklin. This is neither coincidental nor unique to New Hampshire as we see similar results nationally.

This is true, as those families that have valued education generally have higher incomes and therefore, tend to live in more expensive locations.  Further, they do tend to take more of an interest in their offspring's schooling, as it generally is a good indicator on how things will turn out later in for them, and all good parents want their children to do better than they have.  Frankly, I do not think that this comes as any surprise to anyone.

Such tests generally do not to measure the impact that quality instruction may have on student achievement. In this regard, teachers are hard-pressed to determine if it is their instruction that is advancing students toward proficiency on the test or if it is their students' SES.

Here's where my heartache begins to kick in.  Not more than four paragraphs into his article, he finally addresses what I noticed in his last article - he finally brings in the missing item - teachers.  Automatically, the premise is laid that ALL instruction is of "quality". 

I would submit that not all teachers are created, nor teach, equally well.  It remains to be seen whether or not the instruction is of "quality", as we have seen evidence of it not being such even here in the Lakes Region. Yes, I do believe that we do have some excellent teachers in the District - conversely, I bet we have some that aren't as well.  No, I'm not throwing stones, but I think it would be considered general knowledge, just as in any business, who are "good", who are "not as good", and who are "deadwood".

The other problem is that there seems to be no consensus as to what is quality curriculum and philosophies.  To the outsider, fads in educations seem to move at the same rate as modes of dress within teenager community.  Nor do we ever seem to see that any of these new ideas being rigorously examined, measured, and evaluated and brought before the public.

And while this article is not even addressing the issues within NH, it points out a serious lack of quality instruction - 40% of kids within Ohio that do go on to college require remedial assistance before starting the "real" college classes.  This alone would tend to make me think that the blame of an SES (social-economic status) may be over blown:

Of the thousands of freshmen entering Ohio colleges and universities this fall, it's a safe bet that more than one-third won't be completely ready for the next level of their education. In the most recent figures available (2003), 41 percent of newly minted Ohio high school graduates who went to Ohio public colleges enrolled in remedial math or reading courses during their freshman year.

And no high school, it seems, is immune to the problem.

The experiences of local graduates show that even the best area high schools - those rated "excellent" by the state - are graduating students who need extra help once they get to college. Figures from the Ohio Board of Regents that track 2003 graduates who attended Ohio public colleges and universities reveal that every area high school reporting produced a student who ended up in a remedial college class. (Archdiocese-affiliated schools were not required to report and are not included.)

This is a rather sad indictment of the current level of high school achievement.  Given the  large number of students, assuming a normal bell curve applies for these students (standard percentages bright, average and not-bright), it would seem that the SES distribution could be factored out.  Thus, it points out that there has to be something to my hypothesis as well - real world results have to be account for - the missing leg of teaching and curriculum.

Anyways, back to Dr. DeMinico's article.

Even if you partially embrace the premise above, you may logically infer that students coming from lower SES families and those who may not be able to demonstrate proficiency on multiple choice tests are disadvantaged straight away.

Notice the second excuse - those that cannot take multiple choice tests are cast as "victims".  There are some kids that are this way - and many more that try to use the excuse as well. I fully admit that I've tried this excuse a couple of times, and when my Mom caught on, the excuse went away real quick.  And yes, this shows that I had one "advantage" that some did not - a parent (although a single parent) made sure that I lived up to HER expectations - not mine.  In fact, it was the her family's expectations - of the 12 nieces and nephews on her side, all of us have advanced degrees except my younger brother with just a BA (what the heck, he only owns a multi-million dollar company).

What is more, schools serving lower SES communities are further disadvantaged as they face sanctions by the government if the results are not in accordance with NCLB, which may include:

a) Publicly embarrassing the school in the local newspapers.

So what?  Where is it stated that the educational industry should granted immunity being held up when it fails?  When I read missives, Letters, and Columns from those that are in Academia locally, they certainly seem to have no problem in ridiculing other parts of public life. 

If the school is bad, it should be held up for examination (see Ohio, above).  Hiding the problem will not solve the problem.

Sorry, this DOESN'T make it with me, nor with most people.  Why?  The over-emphasis of "building self-esteem", or advocating non-competitive environments, has run amok in the liberal academic world (see here just for Gilford). In the non-educational world, if you don't do well, you fail.  Trust us, Dr. DeMinico, the embarrassment will fade.

Unless you fail to correct the problem, and then you graduate to "laughing stock".  And yes, there is a place for ridicule yet in this world.

b) Losing school funding from the government.

This is a major reason for a paradigm switch - a student should not be entitled to a public school education but should be entitled to a publicly funded education.  If a school is so bad that it cannot be mended, it should be possible for these students to go elsewhere to succeed.  Why should a child be trapped because the management and employees cannot teach well?

When I hear outcries that this would destroy the public school systems, I just shrug - welcome to the world of paradigm shifts!  My industry (computer programming, engineering, consulting) confronts this every day.

You know what the answer is?  Make yourselves better and add value to your selves and your products (yes, your educational services are indeed products).

c) Inability for the school to attract and retain qualified teachers.

Welcome to the real world - no one in the private sector wants to go to a company that is failing - unless they believe that they can profit in helping to turn it around.

d) Control of the school taken from the local board by the state.

Again, the analogy is bankruptcy court in the private sector.  If the school management is so bad that the school has failed in its mission, the school board and the school management SHOULD be stripped of control.  Why should the children be punished for the failings of those that should be providing for them?  By definition, management has failed - why would YOU want to keep them in place to fail more?

It certainly seems to me that Dr. DeMinico's A through D scenarios show an amazing lack of what happens in the real world, or a belief that bad outcomes should not happen to schools.

My question is, why should they be held differently than anyone else?

Again, the consumers of our governmental educational system have already judged the entire system as lacking, otherwise NCLB would not exist.  If you in the educational - industrial complex were doing a good job all over the country, we would not be writing what we are writing.

The fact that we are shows that the bond of trust has already been broken - you've already lost that argument. 

At Gilford, children are not punished for their inability to readily grasp a concept. Teachers do not deprive children of recess or lunch for poor performance. Children are not ridiculed by adults, scolding them in front of others or by requiring them write on the marker board "I will ¿" 100 times.

Gee, congratulations, you're doing your jobs (sarcasm implied).   And this is supposed to mean what?  So you do not punish for poor performance - should we be expecting that you should be?. 

Based on the last statement, let's flip it the other way - do you think that this might have something to do with the lack of respect or discipline that is shown to the staff - a big component as to why teachers are leaving the industry?  I remember being caught at doing something I should not have - being told to stay after school, and literally write on the blackboard 100 times "I will not act up in the class".  Embarrassed?  Yes.  Ridiculed?  Yes.  Did I do it again?

No. My behavior became much better at a very fast rate of change.  And, so did my grades.

I'm not talking about ridiculing - but sometimes I hear what might constitute ridicule and just wonder what might actually constitute punishment that would be meaningful? 

What good schools do is to re-teach students using alternative strategies and then reassess their understanding in multiple ways. Many accept this as an important part of learning — that is, being free to fail without sanctions. When students are free to fail without ridicule they are more likely to learn freely, on their own, which will lead to more lasting understandings.

There are things in the private world that in failing, you will be sanctioned - and rightfully so.  Yet, there is the phrase "if you are not making mistakes, you're not trying hard enough".  Students should feel that they can try new things - if teachers and management do not train students to a given standard of excellence, then yes, the teachers and management should be sanctioned.

A Concerning View of NCLB:

For the sake of argument and as unlikely as this may be, let's just say that the goal is achieved — that is, all students in the U.S. achieve proficiency and above in math and reading by 2014 as assessed by a standardized test. If that happens, do you believe the government would?

a) Award bonus money to all schools.

b) Recognize teachers for doing an excellent job.

c) Buy advertisements in the local newspapers praising the schools.

d) Give principals an all expense paid trip to Socrates' birthplace.

e) None of the above?

This is silly - again, if you were doing your jobs right, NCLB would not exist.  If teachers successfully have taught their students (for the burden is on them and not the students), the reaction should be just like in the private sector - an internal sense of satisfaction for a job well done.  After all, I keep hearing that phrase "it's for the children"!  For if this does happen: 

• Students are learning what they should.
• Teachers and staff have successfully met our expectations of their duties.

Why should government do all these things if you are just doing your jobs correctly?  Since the unions are fighting merit pay, there are no incentives that should be offered.  Can't have it both ways, right?

If you answered "e" none of the above, you are correct. One could even speculate that if all students achieve at the proficient and above levels by 2014, the designers of NCLB would say that the standards are too low and would revise them accordingly. In effect, this hypothetical would continue to advance the notion of "winners and losers" among students and schools — and that prospect, sadly, is contrary to the mission of most schools where each child is expected to be successful.

Got news for ya, doc, that IS how it operates in the real world.  Ever hear of six sigma, of continuous improvement manufacturing?  Standards are there to be met AND EXCEEDED.  And once the bar has been met, it most certainly should be raised again.  Don't your best teachers continuously  challenge their students to do better, to be better?

And yes, Dr. Deminico, there are winners and losers out there.  Some are absolutely winners (think Bill Gates) and some that are complete losers (no one comes to mind, but think of those that have deliberately made such poor choices in life that they have precluded themselves from ever  being productive citizens), but most of use have things are we have won at, and some that we have lost at. 

Regardless of current educational theories go, this IS life's reality. 

Once you step into the world outside of education and academia, it is ALL about competition.  While we should try to create a level starting place, the real world does say that this probably will not happen. And outcomes are not guaranteed either - nor should they.  We should be equal in the eyes of the law and each treated with respect.  But nothing but nothing else is a sure bet in life.

What is NOT a certainty is anyone's eventual outcome once they leave school (and the most wise will realize that one never leaves learning behind - it will be necessary to be a live long activity in order to succeed). Saying or wishing that it isn't so will not change it.

Why the notion even exists that students and schools are exempt from competition is just beyond me.  For if we insulate our students from that competition, they will have been ill served by those that claim to prepare them for life.  In fact, we will have failed them.  Kids, in general, are not the delicate beings that they are made out to be - the vast majority understand this and can cope with this reality.

Once again, Dr. DeMinico goes on:

Lessons That One May Take Away From This Situation:

a) The results are not intended to compare schools or school districts.
b) Communities are different, with varying levels of SES which may influence results.
c) Look for trends in test results over a period of four to five years, and not just one
    year.
d) NECAP's do not test for depth of understanding or for the application of knowledge.
e) A student may show good progress and still not meet the standards of NCLB.
f) Success is a broad concept involving a student's academic, emotional, social and   physical growth.
g) Consider multiple measures rather than a single test to determine the success of each student — remember, one size does not fit all.

A) Actually, they are and should be.  For too long, schools have held themselves up with the phrase " give us more resources and we can do better".  We as consumers who pay the bill are no longer willing to accept this on face value, for we have seen the dispiriting results.  The bill has come due, Dr. DeMinico - show us the results, because what we are seeing now in those that are joining the real world are sorely lacking the skills that they need.  And those results will only come about when everyone can see, in standardized way, what the results of our expenditures are.

B) Again we see the the relentless effort to put so many items into the process to try to convince us of "hey, you cannot possibly measure what we do!"  We understand this item - now prove that you have the skills to overcome it.  And frankly, when spread over thousands of schools and millions of students from all kinds of backgrounds, we can indeed measure and quantify the results.

C) On this point, I can agree.

D) It is a snapshot, but sufficiently broad to give us an understanding of how teachers are educating our kids (and the emphasis is on the teachers, not the kids).  Stop making excuses - we get the part of there are multiple variables to the process - control those that you can (e.g., teaching methodologies) and strive to overcome those you cannot.

E) This is still true, but I consider it a straw man argument. Please "get" the following - prove that you can still handle the basics of why we entrust our kids to you - the academic portion of reading, writing, math, science, et al).  By widening your definition of what success is, you may be ignoring the core parts of that mission.  For outlier type kids, if you do not agree with the law, change it, and not just belittle it.  However, you folks are the professionals - start in depth analyzing of your teaching methodologies to see which work and which are just "pie in the sky".  Many other industries do this - try ideas, measure them, keep those that work, and throw out the ones that are just nuts (like this one)

Lastly, do not lose sight of the prize which for public schools is the development of intelligent, sensitive, adaptable and civically minded young people, well prepared to learn through out life and to solve the problems that we, with all our best intentions, have left behind.

Again, you are missing what many of us want you to do - the core mission.  You are like many companies that stray from the things that have made them successful and branch out to other endeavors for which they find they are not so successful.  Like them, educators are failing by ignoring the basics of their industry. 

Competition is coming, Dr. DeMinico, in the form of homeschoolers (and colleges are starting to chase after them too!), charter schools, private schools, and vouchers. I understand that there is a great market developing for offshore tutors too! As parents and citizens become more and more disenchanted with the failings of the present system, there will be more pressure to change the system that you are trying to defend.  

Remember, when consumers no longer embrace your products or services, you will fail.  Instead of attacking and denigrating NCLB and other efforts to better monitor your services and student outcomes, embrace and go past them.  Let us know what your standards are - in excrutiating detail outline what they are and how your teachers are planning on meeting them.  You have new software in the schools and new tools via the Internet to keep those parents that wish to in the loop.

Prove to use you are adding and providing value. 

Posted by Skip at 06:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Doug, in his column in the Daily Sun of , made some observations about Gilford's K-9 unit.  I made a couple more, as I had responded to other Letter to the Editors (also in the Daily Sun).  However, Chief Markland had a response in the Gilford Steamer (Letter to the Editor, 9/6 - paid subscription) and the Daily Sun (not online) in response to Doug's column.

To the Editor:

[snip]

In the year following the passage of a K-9 Unit, we budgeted $2,500 for the upkeep of the K-9 Program, a significant decrease from the K-9 Unit's inception. Currently we have not exceeded that amount and do not anticipate that we will. We have budgeted $2,500 for the coming year, so the assumption of escalating costs is not true.

My question will be, come budget time, will we find out that this is the true cost of the dog, his training, the handler, and the cruiser?  Or, as in the joke that is well known by those of us who have to fill in travel related expense reports "go ahead, find the boots!".

The cruiser that was "dedicated" to be the K-9 Unit was a cruiser in the town's vehicle rotation. This means that vehicles purchased by the police department are rotated to other town departments as needed after a few years of patrol use, thus maximizing the usefulness of the vehicle's initial purchase.

This is fine, and most citizens would expect that this would happen to the point that the vehicle will keep working (face it, cruisers pile up mileage real quick, and even with great mechanics, they will last just so long).

The matter of "keeping the dog busy" is misconstrued as it pertains in this opinion. One of the most important parts of keeping a K-9 dog highly trained in its specialties is to use the dog often in real scenarios. The police department has a standard policy in place in the deployment of the K-9, a policy utilized by K-9 Units nationwide. We must maintain the dog's ability to perform in a high standard of competence in order to substantiate the dog's actions in legal matters.

And this is one of the main points that Doug in his column, and I in my Letters did agree on.  We all agree that the dog must be active in order to be useful. 

The problem is "does the needs of Gilford provide a an overwhelming percentage of the dog usage in those real life scenarios? In fact, while we are paying for the dog, the handler, and the cruiser for the K-9 unit, what percentage of official calls are strictly for Gilford, and which are for "outside use?

If the answer is that the percentage is less than 50% or so, wouldn't it be more reasonable that the cost and responsibility of the dog reside at the next "level up" - the county level with the Belknap County Sheriff's department?  Thus, this resource that is used by multiple entities would be paid in whole by all those entities in our county taxes.

This requires an extensive amount of training and care, which Officer Dustin Parent volunteered to do. Being a former K-9 handler myself, I can say it takes a lot of time and effort out of an officer's off duty time to keep the dog performing at peak performance.

This is a very revealing statement! This is an admission that the true cost of the dog is not just that of dog food, shelter, and official training exercises.  Given the cost of an officer on detail (about $30 / hour, but I would have to check on that), it looks from what the Chief wrote that much of the actual cost (basically free time on the part of the Officer / Handler) is off the books. 

While this is a great deal for Gilford's taxpayers, (and I thank Officer Parent for giving the town all that free time) it's not so great for the handler (that is time spent training is time spent away from family and friends, right?) and it makes it much harder to compute the actual (versus the budgeted or official) cost of the dog.

Officer Parent's relationship with the dog and the amount of time he puts in with the dog are incredible. Equally impressive is that he dedicates much of his own time on this, without putting in for overtime.

Again, is this fair to Officer Parent?  Or to the budgeting process?   I know that he volunteered for this, but again, this distorts the true cost of Gilford running a K-9 unit - it is "costs off the book".  The true cost, I would imagine, would be far more than what is budgeted.

There are times however, when Officer Parent is called to duty while not working his regularly scheduled shift, he does put in for overtime.

Since he is the dog handler, is this overtime attributed to just the department, or is it assigned to the K-9 unit?  If the call is specifically for the use of the dog, this type of cost should really be accruing to the price of having such a resource.

[snip] 

This author of the editorial then continues his opinion by quoting stories about the K-9 Unit in the Citizen and the Gilford Steamer (by the way, you misspelled Stefanie Phillips' name).

C'mon Chief, we all know that his name is Doug Lambert.  Trying to be coy and also pointing out a spelling mistake detracts from your real conversation about the K-9 unit.

The next point of inquiry indicates the Gilford Police sends the K-9 Unit to other communities without seeking compensation. The Gilford Police has a Mutual Aid Agreement with several surrounding agencies. This agreement between agencies allows us to send assistance to other agencies when needed, as well as other agencies sending us assistance when needed.

And this is a good thing, no doubt about it and I am glad (and thankful) for it.  My problem, and others in the town as well, is that if WE are paying for a specialized resource that is used mostly out of town, let THEM pay in part for that expertise!

But for the sake of discussion, let's see how this theory works if we should adopt a compensation plan between agencies. We should of course look at past history to develop this compensation plan. History will tell us that Laconia had police dogs long before Gilford. Cases were worked in the town of Gilford using Laconia's dogs, so I guess we owe them some money for those services. Of course, it is unfair to just limit this law enforcement tool to just K-9's, so let's compensate for all law enforcement services. Again, history tells us that in the time I've worked here, we've had situations in Gilford that Laconia Police as well as other agencies have assisted us. I guess we owe them some money.

There are times that emergencies arise, and you just go and handle it - worry about the paperwork later.  However, if resources need to be allocated to other places (by us and others), money can be used to track the relative cost and usage of those resources.  Although he uses it to pooh-pooh  the entire idea, frankly I don't think that Chief Markland's idea is bad one!   In fact, I think it would be, if done correctly, would be a great one!

Every resource has a cost, and financial worth can help to keep track of where that resource is used far easier than just man, vehicle, or dog hours.  At the end of some time period, by accounting for resource utilization between jurisdictions, one might be able to see where that resource is being most utilized. It may be very well true that perhaps our K-9 unit is spending much of its time outside of Gilford - or maybe not.  Only by tracking this specialized resource in detail can one manage that resource (remember, if you cannot track it, you cannot manage it) and its real budget.

As far as going back into history to recoup or pay monies?  Not a real fruitful activity and not one that I would promote UNLESS real good records have been kept on both sides. 

A few events that come to mind are the cases involving a standoff situation on Morrill Street that took the life of a New Hampshire State Trooper, in which Laconia Police sent officers over to assist us. There was also the time a group of individuals dressed up as Ninjas and invaded a home on Governor's Island. An extensive search for these individuals was conducted on the island, involving several local agencies. In all fairness, the town of Gilford should be billed for that service based upon this compensation plan. I know there were many times that I investigated motor vehicle accidents on the bypass in which Laconia Police sent officers to assist in traffic control. I guess we have to pay for that too. And we cannot forget those times when either a Gilford or Laconia cruiser is involved in an accident. If State Police is unavailable, history has shown how we send officers from the other agencies to investigate. I guess they would be billed for their service of the investigation.

Again, I would not have a problem going forward with this as long as there were agreements in place that would properly account for the resources used.  It happens in the private sector all the time.

Remember, my argument can work both ways.  Say if we are always paying others to service our town needs, that might be an indication that we need to review the size of the department.

Posted by Skip at 08:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)