GilfordGrok

UPDATE- While we didn't get to all the topics, it was still a great program. Click HERE to visit the podcast page to listen in if you didn't get a chance to hear the show live.

Posted by Doug at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every year, there are items that are not part of the "official" budget yet have a dollar amount attached to them that either the Town wishes to single out or that a group of taxpayers have signed a petition in order to have items placed on the ballot as a warrant article. This past BudComm meeting, we were presented with such items. For your convenience, I have set up a table for these items:

Please note that the BudComm have already voted on the Ambulance Replacement ($50K), Bridge Replacement (2nd year of a two year funding of $271,600 / year), and a Highway Equipment ($30K).

Here's my problem - LOOK at the Land Conservation amount:  this is NOT a small number!  More later in another Post. 

My wish is that the voters see the ramifications of voting for all of the warrant articles.  While the current working budget is up only 1.44% over last year, the warrant articles by themselves would add 14.36% to that!  This is a total of 15.8% over last year.

How long can this rate of increase be sustained?  Already over the last 4 years, we have had average increases of 15% - compounding growth is wonderful if it is an interest bearing account that is creating wealth for you (bank account, CD, money market account) but a real problem when each year's increase of expenses compounds for the next!

Each warrant article has its own pluses and minuses.  Here are my takes on each (and I speak only for myself and not for the whole BudComm):

Compensated Absences - Have to account for the accumulated time that a Town employee can "store" over time (it used to be up to 90 days - that has been reduced to a maximum of 24 days).  Thus, for example, if a 10 year employee has saved 10 days over that amount of time, the Town is obligated to pay that amount when the employee leaves the Town (fired, layed off, resigns, or retires).  Got to do it, but instead of a warrant article, I would like to see it built into the official budget.

Laconia Airport - A sunk cost in my estimation...this year and next year, and it is done.  This has allowed the Airport to redo its runway.  Given that it is a done deal, we can jawbone about it, but might as well finish it off. 

Building Repair - fine by me....accidents, leaks, whatever - should tuck some $$ aside for this.

DPW Truck - Sheldon goes a good job by almost everyone's estimation. However, I think that this was put here to make the official budget look a bit better (one can always move numbers around) - certainly it seems like that Truck does need to be replaced.  

Police Station - There is no doubt that the Police Dept needs more room...the question that I have is what it will look like, and if they are getting the basic questions (see here) asked, answered, and publicized first.  

Fire Engine - This is NOT a warrant article yet.  Neither the Board of Selectmen (no action), Capitial Improvement folks (tie vote), nor the BudComm have done anything official on this.  Neither has Chief Hayes except to present the info to these folks.  If I had my druthers, I'd still (even after talking to Chief Hayes for a few hours) like to see a twofer - one Engine is already out, take the next one out too, and get a piece of equipment that could replace both.

Invasive Species - I am not in favor of this article.  As it stands now, this would be setting a precedent for the Town to get into the milfoil eradication  business.  This treatment would be for Smith Cove - in my opinion, an area that does not benefit the entire Town.  If these folks, land owners / boat owners / marinas, want it cleaned out, why can't they raise the entire sum privately?  Sorry, but I do not agree with John Goodhue that we have an "obligation" to the Lake - especially when he slipped in a couple of sentences of protecting "mother Earth" (sorry - too much like Gaia worship to me).  I am not enamored of the idea that government has to be the one that solves all problems - but in this case, if there is any level of government that should be involved, it should be at the State level and not Gilford.  After all, the State is responsible for the Lake, not the towns.

Posted by Skip at 02:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, Ms. LaLibertie lays it all out right from the get-go, doesn't she?  With a title of

I can see where this is going, quickly.  Well, since she has taken the time to write, I shall reply.  The only caveat, as in any Post here at GilfordGrok, I am speaking for me and not necessarily for the Budget Committee ("BudComm") as a whole (that only comes from the BudComm Chair). 

Enough is enough. At what point will certain members of the Gilford Budget Committee realize their role in town government? At what point will our town Selectmen reign in these members?

And this is exactly the point, and she has it exactly backwards. Without going into the RSAs, here is the lesson - the Board of Selectmen ("BOS") sets policy and is responsible for overall management of the Town, holding the Town managment and employees accountable and they themselves are accountable to the voters.

The BudComm is separate from and is not accountable  to the BOS - only to the taxpayers.  We take the budget prepared by the BOS, analyze and make changes to it, and then present our version to the taxpayers (not to the BOS). 

As opposed to what Ms. LaLibertie believes, the taxpayers will tell the BudComm their desires by either voting for or against the budget we present.  The BOS has no role in this process (excepting the BOS representative to the BudCOmm - which is Connie Grant at this time [and for whom I have had  nothing but admiration during this process]).

So Ms. LaLibertie, seeing that you have not done your homework, I hope this helps to shed light on how this piece of your local government operates.  If you review this, you can see my thoughts on the BOS in this process so far.

People who live in Gilford choose to do so because they want a certain quality of life. We live in Gilford because it is one of the most amazing communities in America. We need only to look around us to see the many fine qualities that our town boasts. We enjoy services and community benefits that are unmatched in our region, and an idyllic setting that affords us opportunities every day that other people enjoy only a week or two at a time on vacations.

I agree with this totally!  The problem, and it is a serious one, is that the cost of having this is out of line with the overall median income of the town families.  Click on Statistics to your right and review the tables. 

And yet, given the recent actions of the Budget Committee, I am certain this quality of life is quietly being eroded. As evidenced at the meeting on Tuesday, some members of the committee are hastily and aggressively cutting budgets and programs without looking at the long term effects. They are arbitrarily making decisions that are not in the best interest of the town, but rather meeting their own personal agendas.

Boy, this will take some time.....

First, there is nothing quiet about this.  The Citizen, the Daily Sun, and the Gilford Steamer all have been reporting on this year's budget process.  Plus, listen to the radio show "Meet The New Press" (airing on WEMJ 1490 AM, Saturdays from 2-4pm and podcasts here) - the budget process is discussed most broadcasts. 

Fact is, I invite you to come into the studio - we are a "no sandbag zone" - no monologues allowed, but we do look for civilized discussions.  We do disagree with you, but you can try to persuade us otherwise - or at least, listen to us.

Hastily?  I think not.  All of the BudComm members spend a lot of time meeting with the departments in subcommittee, discussing the results of those interviews, and then making recommendations to the BudComm as a whole.  Frankly, I am amazed at how much time it takes to do this responsibility, thoroughly and well. No, nothing is done in a hasty manner.

I will also point out, Ms. LaLibertie, that compiling all of the data for the Rankings that the Wage And Salary Comparison SubCommittee has presented took no small amount of time.  Again, click on Statistics to your right and take the time to review them in a non-hastily manner.

Aggressive? Let me issue a challenge to you.  Go ahead....see what the BOS budget was when presented to the BudComm, subtract  out the cuts that the BOS themselves have done since that time (either from better data that has arisen since the process started or from BOS policy changes), and then do the math and see how little has been really cut.  Aggressive?  20-30% is aggressive; we are not aggressive.

Arbitrarily?  No - see above.

Personal Agendas?  I am not on the BudComm to be "someone".  I am not embarking on a path to become a career politician.  I have a problem with  budgets that are consistently several times the  rate of inflation over the last 4 years (try an average of 15%).  Thus, I am trying to slow the rise of the Town's budget to where it is more sustainable long term without changing the nature or demographics of the Town.

I am on the BudComm not because of a personal agenda or a personal vendetta.   Engineers attempt solve problems - that is all that I wish to do. 

Now I suspect that there will be some in Gilford who would perceive my position as being insensitive to the needs of the economically disadvantaged. This could not be farther from the truth. I completely understand that there are folks in our community who live on a fixed income; and that there are others who are struggling for a variety of reasons. Taxation is a burden to all in a variety of ways, and the elderly and disadvantaged are particularly challenged to meet their responsibility.

Now (and in general) those that are on the receiving end of paid taxes often see a slowing of increases as cuts.  That is so wrong from so many aspects, but that is gist for another Post.  Here (as an example), instead of a 10% rise, I want a 6%.  Budget still go up - there is NO cut - but just at a slower pace.

I am glad to see that you see it as a burden, but as a necessary one. Why price the folks that you are trying to show compassion for out of Gilford? 

As a member of a charitable organization here in the community that is often approached for money, I know all too well the needs that exist around us. I just want to be sure that members of the budget committee attempt to help these folks in a thoughtful and educated way.

Then often, one of the best things that one can do is to allow these folks to keep more of their money in their own pocket. 

Simply saying that, "I will cut taxes" without considering future ramifications to the community as a whole is short sighted and self-serving.

If that was the case, you would be right.  However, it is not the case, and you are very wrong to assume such. 

Posted by Skip at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As most of you know, the Board of Selectmen ("BOS") have changed the COLA policy that was part of the Town payroll policy.  For those not familiar with the term (especially since it dropped out of usage in the private sector quite some time ago), COLA stands for Cost Of Living Adjustment.  In general terms, this was a percentage (in Gilford's case, was set by BOS policy) that is automatically applied to all Town employees annual or hourly wage.

This has now been dropped and a Performance Based Increase (think merit) policy has been put into place - like almost all private sector firms. 

Well, this is a "sea change" in policy, and has been accompanied by no small amount of Press and comment.  Given that the local Press has quoted certain members of the BOS, I feel that it is now OK for others to do the same.

For instance, let's take the Tuesday edition (11/21/06) of the Daily Sun - the article was labeled

"Selectmen tell employees COLA had to go to ward off deeper cuts".

The starting quote:

"Noting that the Budget Committee had been concerned abou the COLA for a couple of years, he disclosed that "we've been working on this for a while, but the Budget Committee moved up its time table." - Dennis Doten, Chairman

Let's see if I have this straight - if this has been in the works for a couple of years - why has it taken that long for the BOS to do something?  Was this a case of "let's wait them out and maybe nothing will come of it?".  Or was it a calculus that the Budget Committee wouldn't ever have the will to look at the salaries and do something about them due to the makeup of the members - and the BOS got caught flatfooted and outflanked?

After all, since the BOS could have, at any time, change the policy, why not until now?

The BudComm is advisory only - we do not set policy.  And if the BOS is supposed to be in control of the Town, making the insinuation that the BudComm has forced its hand is just a little over the top (really, just a teeny bit).

"The Committee", he said, was "making noises about doing trhings that would have hurt us very badly." presumbably a reference to a threat of deep cuts to the operating budget recommended by the selectmen.

Noises? I'm not sure that I that I would have used that word.  However, my concern is the phrase of "hurt us very badly".  What this says to me, given that this was in context of speaking to the employees, that his concern IS with the employees and not necessarily with those that elected him to watch over the Town and its budget.  By casting his lot with the employees (from reading the article as a whole), it is my opinion that unless the BudComm had started to look at the salary rankings, he would have been quite happy to leave the situation at status quo.  And thus, leaving the structural problems with wages in place.

[When one of the employees], Stephanie Verdile, said..."I thought we were going to be stood up for"...Doten replied "The Budget Committee changed the agenda and put us in a ..." ...Boucher offered "It was not something we wanted to do."

Since neither Mr. Doten nor Ms. Boucher have asked to speak to the BOS directly, nor have I approached them, it certainly appears that both of them have thrown their lot in with the employees.  Again, I wonder where the concern is for the taxpayers that pay the taxes that fund the operation of the Town.  

Given the ranking of the salaries, the lack of  change in the salary structure before this, and the comments above, my comment is "who then IS looking out for the taxpayers?"

Doten continues: "Nothing stops them from being irrresponsible from charging ahead and doing something that is not prudent"

My first thought is "if you and Alice had been doing the job on behalf of the taxpayers and fixing this problem (given that you obviously maintained that there IS no problem from your actions), you wouldn't be in this situation.  If the rise in the Town Budgets, taken over the last few years, had stayed around the rate of inflation instead of an average of 15.73% over the last 4 years (approx 3 X the overall inflation rate) using actual expenditures, you wouldn't be in this situation. 

To claim that we are irresponsible?  Not prudent?  This is nothing more than pure politicing and posturing!  In the computer industry, this is called FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  This is nothing more than the political CYA of FUD.

Oh, and the quote from Mr. Doten that the BOS had

"enough ammo and solid ground" to show that the [Budget] committee's assumptions were mistaken".

REALLY?  I've been seeing this claim in the paper for a while....I've also not heard or seen anything to back this up.  Let me put it plainly: if you have something, show it. Heck, I'll gladly put it up here on GilfordGrok! You've had since the beginning of the budget process to do so, and there has been nothing forthcoming to prove your statement.  Until then, just bluster.

I did have a chuckle in seeing the following from him:

"there is a large silent majority out there we hope to hear from"

and an employee quipped

"and if you don't hear from that silent majority?" 

And this is a very good point.  Without the taxpayer support, a movement cannot sustain itself.  Here, when the Town votes, we will see what the silent majority really wants - one way or another.  Frankly, I have the feeling that the S.M. has had enough (given the vote downs of the Police Dept, the Library, and the School budget).  This is why I am advocating for the ordinary taxpayer the way I am.

Frankly , Ms. Boucher did not help his cause any

"we have to answer to the people in town wo elected us and a lot of them are hurting"

and she had received

"lots of positive feedback" since the decision to to replace the COLA with the PBI was announced

To me, this is an indication that we know how the S.M. is taking all this.  Yet, Mr. Doten continued to throw his lot in with the employees:

"We really are going to be out there fighting for you with the tools we have available" 

Hey, Mr. and Mrs. and Ms. Taxpayer - Mr. Doten is not your friend.  Look at the overall rankings, (mine are available!) reread his remaks, and make your own decision - who is on your side? 

Posted by Skip at 08:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Laconia Daily Sun, Tuesday of 11/21 (the same article I discussed here), I see that Chuck Campbell decided to comment on me.  Well, here I get to do the same on his comment:

"some members of the Budget Committee have it out for the town employees" 

Wrong.  He continues:

He pointed to Skip Murphy's remark that the town wanted B+ employees, not more expensive A+ employees, suggesting that he wanted to destroy wages and benefits"

Mr. Campbell, at least give the quote correctly.  Yes, I did use an analogy using A+ and B+.  But next time, use the entire quote.  While I cannot remember word for word EXACTLY what I said, here is the intent.

Given the ranking of the Salaries, we are paying top ranked salaries.  Over time, this will be unsustainable unless the Board of Selectmen wish to force a change in the income demographics of the town.  Gilford, given the ranking of its median family income, cannot afford these salaries.

While we may want to have A+ employees, can we afford the A+ salaries that come with them?  I am afraid that we may have to settle for B+ employees at B+ salaries.

Let me use another analogy.  My current car is 9 years old with 135K miles on it - just about time for a new one.  My desire is to get the best I can - a Benz would be nice.  I might be able to buy it, but then I wouldn't be able to buy much of anything else - ergo, I really can't afford it.

Instead of a Benz, I have to settle for less.  Perhaps a Buick.  Certainly a "lesser" car than a Benz, but I can afford it.

As far as destroy wages and benefits? 

Hardly

Given my other ruminations here, I am not out to destroy anything.  Nice of you to say I want to, but that would run counter to everything else that I have said in public (as you so neatly failed to mention).  Repeatedly, and in my motion before the BudComm, I have stated that I do not want to cut salaries.  Period.  Never.  End of Story. 

Anything else said to the contrary is a lie, and I defy you to show me where I have ever said differently!  I have, and will continue to maintain, that I wish to see the Salaries drift downward in such a way that they better reflect our Town's income ranking within the 32 Town grouping of our population demographic.  Nothing less, but nothing more.

After all,  even though I have publicly stated that ranking the Fire Dept positions is difficult, your position seemed to do well, Mr. Campbell.....

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 Update 1 - This Post was actually written on 11/17...after the first BudComm meeting at the High School.  This past Tuesday, 11/21, all of the artwork that had been displayed while the Play was being presented had been removed.  I do wonder how many people saw the piece...and felt the way I did - this was not appropriate.

This past Tuesday, the Budget Committee had its meeting at the High School (as opposed to normally holding them at the Town Hall).  As usual, not everyone goes home right away; small discussions about almost anything often spring up.  Given that it was the High School this time, I started to look at the artwork up on the wall around the lobby - often, this is done. 

To say that this caught my eye is an understatement.  I found it disturbing to say the least and I have waffled yes-I-should / no-I-shouldn't since Tuesday night.

Yeah I know - big bad conservative trying to censor the free expression of our students.  I'm trying to ridicule budding artists that are only trying to express their innermost feelings.  I'm supposed to be FOR the First Amendment, right?

Two things keep coming to mind - the first is the brouhaha that happened when the Fallen Alumni Memorial was first brought out in the papers.  I Posted my thoughts here, and here is the main thrust of it:

In a email to School Board members, Chairman Derek Tomlinson voiced concerns over a suggested graphic that depicts, amongst other military uniform items, a military weapon.

Tomlinson stated to School Board members heading up the memorial Margo Weeks and Kurt Webber, "I think you should seriously look at alternatives before we take this to the students."

Again, realize that what he is talking about is an almost uniformly symbol of honor and respect for a fallen comrade - an upside down rifle with its bayonet stuck into the ground, a helmet placed on top, and a pair of empty boots.

Now, PLEASE do not read me wrong - I think that the actual graphics on the Fallen Alumni Memorial are fitting.  The elements etched on the stone do a fine job of representing the those that have given their all for their country.

Now, contrast that with this (I have deliberately put it after the jump - if you are already having a bad day, you may wish to skip it).  And ask yourself this:

Which is worse - the rifle or this?  Which one would be more appropriate to really be seen in a high school with young, impressionable students in it?

Again, my feelings that this is not appropriate in a high school - courts have always decided that students do not retain full First Amendment rights when on school grounds.  We hear so much about violence and that we should combat it - I would be hard pressed to consider this non-violent.

Isn't this a double standard?

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

November 21, 2006

Gilford Board of Selectmen

Gilford, NH

To the Selectmen,

The Gilford Municipal Budget Committee wishes to inform the Board of its appreciation for its recent actions regarding town salaries. We know that a decision to eliminate the COLA raises in favor of a strict merit system is very significant. To fund it at the suggested level of 3.75% represents a tangible and substantial savings to the town’s taxpayers, which we as a committee applaud.

 

When studying the wages and benefits, the Budget Committee became concerned with both areas, the first of which has been addressed, as noted above. While a number of this committee’s members believe that certain changes to health benefits, such as employee contributions and co-payment amounts should be explored and considered, it is agreed that such steps should be looked at in the course of preparing next year’s budget.

 

The rationale behind waiting an additional year is to prevent dramatic changes affecting the town’s employees, who we all value and appreciate. Also, it might be possible to identify creative solutions to alleviate escalating benefit costs with very little employee impact at all.

Rather than recommending any further cuts in this area at the present time, we instead ask the Board of Selectmen to make the reduction of town employee health benefit costs a priority in next year’s process. Such studies and changes take time. We believe that working through another budget cycle will give the matter the proper amount it deserves.

 

Respectfully Submitted,

Gilford Municipal Budget Committee

Richard Hickok, Chair

Posted by Doug at 02:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"Nothing stops them from being irresponsible," he remarked, "from charging ahead and doing something that is not really prudent."

Posted by Doug at 12:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GilfordGrok hits the airwaves this afternoon

Posted by Doug at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Discussion of town employee wages and benefits had been put off in the past so as not to disrupt the normal budget review. Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok explained at the beginning of Monday's meeting that he wanted to make sure there was a whole meeting devoted to such a discussion rather than to have occasional mentions of salary concerns without much progress being made on the topic.

.

Hickok further noted that such concerns have arisen every year for the six years he has served on the committee. He said last year the committee decided to send a letter to the Board of Selectmen and, with a $154,839 or 4.5 percent proposed increase in salaries, he felt it is an area that warrants more discussion by the committee.

.

Lambert raised the issue of employee benefits, especially costs pertaining to health care. Based on information from Assistant Town Administrator Debra Shackett, Lambert said that, for

a single-person plan, the town pays $125 per week with the employee paying just $6.58 for health-care coverage.

Lambert said that, if the town required its employees to pay a bit more — for example, $15 per week toward health insurance — the town would be able to cut a significant amount of cost with very little impact to the worker's wage.

Please attend the meeting and support your budget committee as they do their work.

Posted by Doug at 07:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This past Saturday, Veterans Day, the Gilford School Board (Derek Thomlinson - Chair, Margo Weeks, Kurt Webber, Sue Allen, Paul Blandford) and the students of Gilford High School (serving Gilford and Gilmanton) dedicated a memorial in the honor of all graduates of Gilford High that have given their lives in the service of our country.

Nicholas Cournoyer of Gilmanton was serving with the 10 Mountain Division [home based at Fort Drum, NY] in Iraq when he was killed in action.  His memory was honored at this event.

Comrades from the 10th Mountain Division of Fort Drum, NY gather around the GHS Fallen Alumni Memorial before the ceremony.  The Memorial is located in the front of the High School along the outside of the gym wall bracketed by two flag poles. 

American Flag displayed proudly at the entrance to GHS courtesy of the Laconia and Alton Fire Departments.

Deputy Chief Beland and Chief Hayes of the Gilford Fire Department.  They solemnly rang the Fire Bell as NH's Fallen were honored.

Belmont and Gilford Fire Department bagpipers provided traditional music for the ceremonies 

Gilford Police (left) and National Guard Color Guard. 

Gilford Fire Department Color Guard

The Invocation Prayer for the ceremony.

The raising, and the lowering to half staff, of the American and NH flags

Opening remarks by the Gilford School Board Chair, Derek Tomlinson

Remarks by Gilford Selectman Dennis Doten 

 The stirring and patriotic Address was given by Lt. Colonel Kurt Webber, US Army (Ret.) of the Gilford School Board.

Sgt. Lavacca, who served with Specialist Nicholas Cournoyer, read from a poem honoring his fallen comrade.

Remarks by Karen Thurston (Gilford) of the Blue Star Mothers.

Presentation of the Gold Star Banner to the Cournoyer Family.

Reading of the list of those NH residents that have fallen in service of our country. 

Posted by Skip at 07:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

-Sat 11/11 at 10:00AM at the memorial location* for the general public

Posted by Doug at 05:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Overall US Rate of Inflation: about 3.7% through September.

My Inflation Rate of My Gilford Property Taxes from July to yesterday:  19.7%

The latter is over 5 times the former.

And yours was? And your feelings about this are (hint: leave a comment!)?

Posted by Skip at 07:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

“Gov. John Lynch and New Hampshire’s four congressmen called for the resignation of Executive Councilor Ray Burton Monday, citing recent revelations about the criminal record of one of his campaign workers.”

“Blotner entered the race for Executive Council because he believes that having a member of one political party run as the candidate of two parties subverts the democratic process.  He stated, ‘You are either a Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. and should, therefore, only be on the ballot as such.’”

Posted by Doug at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

“It really gives us a road map of the child's academic standing. Therefore the teacher is able to plan the instruction for the student.” 

Posted by Doug at 08:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Addressed to the editor, GilfordGrok,

.

As I was searching for information about the Gilford salary debate, I found a web site that had a lot of helpful information. ( gilfordgrok.com ) This site has figures from credible sites for anyone to confirm. Or if you don’t have the countless hours to compile and compare this enormous amount of information, you could trust that our elected officials on the budget committee have "accurately informed" us! This site also has the letter from the selectmen, also elected officials, questioning the validity of the budget committees report. If , in fact, all of our "elected" selectmen feel the need to chastize the committee taxpayers have elected, and intrusted, to oversee spending, we have more problems than out of control spending. I would think the civil thing to have done would be to have privately compared notes instead of slamming the budget committee in the local newspapers for doing their job. It is quite embarrassing.  One would assume that the people on the budget committee must be, at least, a little offended.  Even IF the figures were a little off, it’s clear to see our town employees are over paid for their responsibilities.

.
 It would appear that when an employee leaves the town that many times the new employee is brought in at the same, or close to the same salary as his predecessor. This may explain why our town administrator with about two years on the job is fourth highest, at $89,542.00, to the 30 or so towns compared. Lets not forget that he also has a fourth ranking assistant at $70,570.00. This may not be the explanation. I don’t believe anyone can even begin to explain the mega salary of our school superintendent! I DO know that my taxes are out of control.

.
 Again the site gilfordgrok.com may help you come to your own conclusion about the generous salaries, don’t forget benefits, of our town employees.

.
Doug Plummer, Gilford

Posted by Doug at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)