GilfordGrok

To the Editor, GilfordGrok,

.

The counter claims regarding the actual goings on in the Gilford budget committee meetings are quite a stretch from reality. The letter writer who described some of the budget committee meeting antics was very accurate.  Unfortunately, he gets way off an important message when he makes claims of what might happen if a Gilford emergency should occur. I’m confident that those meetings have nothing to do with the job performance of Gilford’s dedicated town employees. Those kinds of attacks are not only baseless and uncalled for but unfortunately detract from the point he’s trying to make.

.

As a casual observer, it is easy to understand all sides of this issue. The budget committee meetings are more like department meetings that occur in most corporations. I think Chairman Dick Hickok runs things that way because he comes from a corporate background. Quite frankly it is very interactive and for the most part productive. It only gets dicey if the “experts” are questioned and some of their arguments aren’t holding water. We can all well imagine how we’d feel if we were sitting in our company’s board meetings as the directors were discussing cutting the money that we feel maintains the quality of our job performance or affects the salary and benefits that feed our families. I can honestly say that I’d be whispering an interesting conversation with my fellow employees sitting next to me in such a meeting. Most companies don’t invite employees to those meetings and we simply get the results in our pay checks.

.

Public business is different and all the residents are welcome to attend budget meetings, including town employees. In Gilford, employees are welcome to attend and their input can be very valuable. In one meeting a budget committee member was reminded by a town employee that a generator wasn’t solely used to back up computer systems but was also used to supply emergency power to the school because it’s a designated emergency shelter. There were a few immature snickers from some attendees, whispering accusations about the budget committee member’s competence, but that was ignored and the information was welcomed toward a critical budget vote. Setting aside the snickering comments, this informational dialogue is how it’s supposed to work. Budget committee members hear the department budgets defended by the department heads and make common sense evaluations based on the information received. When differing opinions arise, a debate is heard and decisions are made based on the discussion.

.

In the case of the fire truck, we heard from two experts with differing opinions, nothing more. I detected no personal hatred or agendas and both men gave exceptionally well pointed arguments. I personally would have voted to support Chief Hayes because his reasoning carried more weight with me. Keep in mind that I grew up with a fire fighting dad and spent most of my life around fire fighters. That doesn’t mean that I think anything less of Mr. McDevitt or the people that voted the other way, win or lose, that’s democracy.

.

We should consider ourselves lucky as a community to have so many passionately engaged members of the community willing to be a part of the governing process. The only problem that I’ve witnessed is the negative reaction, by some, to being questioned or even challenged. Gilford is a close community in which everyone cherishes our town employees and unfortunately they are held to a higher standard whether they are in uniform or not. I understand the emotional connection to the budget process but the reality of the situation is how it is reflected in the public’s eye.

Fortunately, I was one of only a few non employees or elected officials in attendance to witness these proceedings. The heckling comments from some of the attendees and tone of some of the presenters, though I understand them, were the very cause of “certain” budget committee member’s reactions. If Gilford had televised hearings we could all bear witness to see who really needs to change their tone. It’s obvious that we aren’t going to be hearing any public apologies any time soon.

.

Sadly, it appears we are going to see a continued barrage of letters and accusations from those who wish to smear the messenger as opposed to debate the important issues. This is usually the case when questionable spending requests can’t be intellectually defended. It would be a pleasant change if those attendees and budget presenters would take a long look in the mirror to assess their own behavior instead of blindly throwing rocks at the budget committee.

.

Understanding this political landscape, I feel it necessary to throw my hat in the ring to run for the Gilford Budget Committee. Recognizing that I can separate the fiction from reality, I believe the wisdom of the voters will elect me to serve them. Your comments are welcome, email: tstewart [type "at" symbol] Lr.net 

.

Terry Stewart – Budget Committee Candidate 2007
Gilford, NH

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Meet the New Press hits the airwaves this afternoon (Sat) at 2PM on NewsTalk Radio 1490.

Call us at 527-1490!

Your phone calls welcome at 527-1490!

Posted by Doug at 08:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The FUD factor - Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.  This is a marketing term well honed and used in the software industry.  What does it really mean?  Basically, it is when a large player either  pre-announces a new offering or a big upgrade to its software lineup.  The hope is that by doing so, it freezes potential customers from buying the competition's software that may be available NOW.  By freezing the thinking of the decision makers of their target market, the competition loses the NOW sales and the FUD maker will pick up at least some of those stalled opportunities. 

Successful FUD campaigns hope to gain mind share, gaining otherwise lost sales leading to better profit and market share.

These were the thoughts when I read Scott Mooney's Letter in the Laconia Daily Sun (1/25/07). My responses to his Letter are here (and no, I'm not going to comment on every part of it):

I would like to offer a letter noting the positive contributions of the dedicated employees of this town. Too often the citizens of Gilford pick up the paper and read letters from a select few residents that bash the Gilford town employees that serve them.

Some individuals find it necessary to write letters for others to keep their own name clear for personal gain.

All the staff at Gilford Fire, Full time and Call go above and beyond serving our citizens 24 hours a day seven days a week. In 2006 the men and women of Gilford Fire participated in just over 5,000 hours of training to better protect and serve our community. Much of that time was on his or her personal time, time away from their families so they could better themselves to serve the town.

Ever since the Murphy report

on wages and benefits came out things have heated up with a select few.

What the citizens of Gilford do not realize, unless they did their own homework, is the towns we were compared to was like comparing apples to oranges.

Most of the towns we were compared to do not provide 24 hour coverage and do not have an ambulance service.

Three years ago the Board of Fire Engineers conducted a study on wages compared with towns that have the same services and staff structure as Gilford. It was determined that we were at the bottom of the list in every category. The Board of Engineers presented their findings with the selectmen and the selectman adjusted the department so that we were right in the middle of the wage scale. That’s where we remain today with towns performing the same services.

For the few people out there that like to bash us, please stop by the fire station, ask questions, see the equipment and how it works. Ask what we are going to do if your child is trapped in your house when it is on fire or how we are going to save your neighbors life when they have a heart attack, then form an opinion about your town employees and our budget requests.

I never saw one member of the Budget Committee at our open house this past fall.

The sub-committee who represented the Fire Department went into the training room spent about two hours and left.

They never asked to see the station or equipment or were interested about how we operate. How can a group of people make decisions and not be educated as to what they represent?

Posted by Skip at 09:16 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Dale Dormody and his Library Director spouse both can be found on the list of petition signers wishing to eliminate the Budget Committee! Can you believe the audacity?! He believes that the BudCom in Gilford ought not to exist anymore... AND HE'S RUNNING FOR A SEAT ON IT!!!!

Posted by Doug at 03:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Updated - in a number of places 

But most of all:

"And when do we get to be on the radio show? A.O."

Listen to Alec O'Meara of the Gilford Steamer as he is on "Meet The New Press" this Saturday!  While Pat and I are in Manchester, I'm quite sure the Doug will have plenty to talk about with Alec.

Hey, Alec is becoming a Grokster! 

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

A work in process, this post is.....after all, we have to work for a living. 

From our Policies page, the words about returning emails could stand in well here in answering Mr. O'Meara:

...Since we have lives outside of the blogosphere and are married to other people and not this blog, emails may go unanswered....

Time is fleeting, and at least for me, I am just at about capacity (maybe a tad above).  Lately, life has been a rush of activity on a number of fronts - we do have lives outside of both 'Groks!'

From the Gilford Steamer:

We're starting to wonder what a newspaper has to do to get itself "Grokked" here,

 And yes, Alec, we do love that word 'Grokked"!  Thanks for coining it for use here in Gilford (as opposed to its real meaning in the book "Stranger in a Strange Land" by one of science fiction's greatest writers, Robert Heinlen.

after three consecutive papers with front page stories or editorials meant to further the discussion on some of the Budget Committee's favorite topics, town-by-town comparison studies, the football program, and the importance of the committee itself. Each week, we've waited each Friday and Monday to see if we'll get a response to what we feel are some pretty interesting points. So far? No mention.

Trust me, not from lack of desire!  As this post starts out, we do have to work for a living, sometimes long hours to boot.  And the BudComm has taken MUCH time. 

A front-page story that directly refers to Skip Murphy's "32 town" study from this past fall ran three weeks ago. No Grok, which was odd to us since the piece could have been interpreted to have shown that Gilford taxes are either favorable or unfavorable depending on your point of view. We thought something like that would have been right up the Grok's alley.

First, let us not forget that it was not the "Skip Murphy" report - it was commissioned by the Chair of the Budget Committee to an officially designated subcommittee tasked for this reason....this was not Skip Murphy deciding to spend oodles of time on a lark. 

Two weeks ago, we ran an editorial about the importance or significance of "keeping one's word," an issue that has been brought up in relation to the football issue in Gilford. There's been no Grok about that either, even though we specifically mentioned co-Grokker Doug Lambert by name. The only editorial response we got was a one-line feedback post on gilfordsteamer.com, which failed to clarify all issues.

Well, I think that if you had been at the BudComm meetings (I know, work constraints!  It gets us all that are not either retired or independently wealthy, or both), you would have heard a lot!  Your own paper had more than a few quotes, by the way....

Last week, we wrote an editorial about whether eliminating the Budget Committee would be good for the town, and concluded that fewer elected positions might offer stronger elections that would in turn better indicate voter opinion to all residents. This was a new point made on this particular debate, and you would think that it would deserve at least a nod from a site that looks to comment on all things Gilford, and yet, there was still no Grok.

If you click on the "about us" link at GilfordGrok.com the site says that site managers would "like to encourage discussion, especially if you disagree with us." Well, so do we.

So, we conclude our piece with the same sentence we began with: what does a newspaper have to do to get itself Grokked? And when do we get to be on the radio show? A.O.

Hey Alec!  Consider yourself Grokked (only kidding).  You must admit, the BudComm season has been rather hectic (hey, we miss seeing your smiling face!  Where have you been?), and that is just the meetings that are public - as I have said a number of times in this past season, it DOES take a lot of work to do the job right in between the meetings in studying the budgets.  Plus the work that goes into my submissions to you, plus a few other things that are "on the stove" lately (like "Meet The New Press" on WEMJ 1490AM, 2-4pm which is no small amount of time for prep work or processing the audio files for the podcasts).  Haven't heard it yet?  Click here and listen to those podcasts.  For example, take a listen to Congressman Tancredo on his Presidential run!

And most of all, family matters come before this all (although, sometimes it is too easy to cross that line).

Thus, the end of it all is - Alec, no time to respond........yet!

Yes, I will answer your front page missives in due course, but that will take a fair amount of time to do right, and that time has been taken up by other things.  Please be patient...trust me, there is a lot in town I'd like to write about, but we're only two schlubs in Central NH, right?

Oh, the radio?  Stick by your phone sir.....I have a feeling that it may be ringing soon.....

Posted by Skip at 01:18 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Since the public hearings, I've done a slow take and am quite disturbed about the reserve fund articles in both Town and School warrants. 

.

I won't go into the intrinsic merits they may or may not have, some seem rather trivial, but the form they take I consider unacceptable.   This year's draft warrants would establish three new expendable reserve funds for the School District and four for the Town.  

I believe that, with very rare exceptions, we should never approve the establishment of expendable trusts.

.

First the distinction between expendable and non-expendable trusts.   The traditional Capital Reserve Fund was not expendable.   It was a matter of one annual meeting putting money aside for anticipated future capital expenditures, with the money staying in trust until a subsequent town or district meeting voted to take it out.   RSA 35:15, I, says "Persons holding such capital reserve funds in trust, . . . shall hold the same until such town, district or county shall have voted to withdraw . . . or shall have named agents of the town, district or county to carry out the objects..."   So if the warrant article names the selectmen or school board as agents to expend, it's expendable and otherwise not.   The purpose of the trust fund was, and still should be, to smooth out fluctuations in the tax rate by putting aside money in years when the net expenditures are relatively low and taking it out when they are high.   Such funds should be established only for purposes where expenditures are irregular and where they are likely to be large enough to have a significant affect on the budget but not large enough to warrant a bond issue.   And a non-expendable fund retains the authority of the Town Meeting or School District Meeting to determine when the money should actually be spent.

.

The one and only case that I can remember where an expendable trust was warranted was the school district a few years ago proposing an expendable special education trust to take care of unexpected expenditures like court-ordered placement of special-needs students.   This got a lot of debate, and we were finally convinced that these situations can come up suddenly and in large enough amounts to really screw up the operating budget.  A non-expendable trust fund wouldn't help much because you'd have to get a court order to call a special meeting to appropriate money out of the fund to pay for the emergency.   In my opinion, none of the funds proposed in this year's warrants come anywhere close to meeting the requirements for expendability that the special ed one did.

.

 The other problem I see is the wording in the three School District articles that makes the appropriation "from the June 30 unreserved fund balance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1 of this year".  If there are unexpended appropriations at the end of the fiscal year they lapse (with some exceptions; see RSA 32:7).   In the case of a school district, the lapsed appropriations (surplus) then go to reduce the district's assessment against the town for the ensuing year;  it is the town that has to levy the taxes.   Any capital reserve fund appropriation in that ensuing year, along with all other appropriations, would normally add to the assessment against the town.   But the wording of the articles in this case would short circuit the normal procedure.   Supposedly, it comes out in the wash but it gives the appearance of free money.   Actually, RSA 35:5 allows a town or district to transfer to a fund "any of its unencumbered surplus funds remaining on hand at the end of any fiscal year", but I think that's a lousy and confusing way to do it and it doesn't cost any less.   And it raises some questions:

.

    1.   How does the school board know, only half way through the school year, that there is going to be a $150,000 surplus at the end of the year?
    2.   If they do know that, then doesn't it imply that the budget for the current year was overly padded?
    3.   If the surplus turns out to be less than $150,000, then is the new appropriation reduced?  The warrant article doesn't say. 
.
    Dick Campbell

Posted by Doug at 04:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Article 15. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Recreation Revolving Fund pursuant to RSA 35-B:2 II. The money received from fees and charges for recreation programs and donations shall be allowed to accumulate from year to year, and shall not be considered to be part of the Town’s general fund. The Town Treasurer shall have custody of all monies in the fund, and shall pay out the same pursuant to the policy developed by the Town (upon order of the Board of Selectmen). These funds may be expended only for recreation purposes as stated in RSA 35-B, and no expenditure shall be made in such a way as to require the expenditure of other town funds that have not been appropriated for that purpose.

Twenty one Warrant Articles will be presented to the voters this year on the Town side. One has to do with the Parks and Recreation department. By all accounts (including mine), Herb Greene, the new Director, did a very good job of presenting the needs of his department. He also held up well under intense scrutiny of the Budget Committee of his budget has when the topic of increasing programs and staff came up. Certainly what disturbed Budget committee members was a philosophical one and of serious debate: what is the proper role of local government? At what point is government stepping in because parents aren't?

Unlike some functions of the Town like road maintenance and safety services which are “needs”, Parks and Recreation is a “want”. To better illustrate the terminology, consider the following scenario – often in severe winter storms, state workers that are “non-essential” stay home. While Police, Fire, and DPW workers would be considered “essential”, Parks and Rec workers would not.

Please don't get the wrong impression – this department adds to the overall quality of life here in Gilford (otherwise it would not exist). However, the contention is that this department was exhibiting behavior that many in the government do – wanting to expand and wishing to increase their level of service. Which, of course, increases budgetary needs. While this is true also in the private sector, the stark arbitrator of profit hold this “scope creep” to a minimum. There is often no such direct governor in local government outside of the Budget Committee – as always, it is easier to say “yes” to new programs and staff than to say “no”, especially nascent ones for kids, right?

The philosophical debate can be framed as “should government continue to expand into areas that chould be run by private citizens?”. In this case, why should Parks and Recs be spending time (and money) aggregating kids for a ski program that parents could easily do on their own? Certainly families can arrange trips to see a Red Sox game, right? At what point should parents be banding together to run programs instead of being dependent on growing government to provide yet another service?

Because some Budget Committee members raised the question, a vociferous debate ensued with those that felt that government should be always be able to continue to provide more and more services. And got upset that those BudComm members just wouldn't understand that the quality of life always overrides the need to use other peoples' money to fund it. After all, when the Warrant was originally approved by the Selectmen, the Citizen quoted Dennis Doten, chair of the Board of Selectmen, said that,

“with the change, the budget committee will no longer have to look over each program”.

Wow!  Trying to lighten the load of the BudComm! Methinks the thinking might have been:

“Now, the BudComm can no longer delete a program.”

By placing this mechanism in place, the Selectmen are effectively removing a portion of Town expenses and income from the oversight of the Budget. After all, they can't say no if they can't see it!

Tangental Note:

As I found out, there is a LOT more time and effort needed to adequately and properly analyze the Town and School Board budgets than what I would have ever thought.  There is a lot of preparation, there are a lot of meetings, and yes, calls to make sure that schedules and information is correct.

For those that have publicly stated that the attempts of the BudComm to slow the rise of spending were "arbitrary" or that we were "ignorant" in doing so, you are quite mistaken.  Frankly, my observation of most of those that have done so is that I could count the number of times they came either not at all or seldom enough that I could use, as the old saying goes, use one hand and still have fingers left over.

The Warrant does speak of donations to the Parks and Rec department. I have no problems with a revolving fund into which citizens can put money in to for funding these governmental services, above and beyond their necessary taxes. Anyone at any time can make donations, and I would encourage people to do so.

Don't get me wrong - kids need activities.  I just have a problem when some people have a knee jerk reaction that all needs have to solved by government because "parents are too busy; it is a different time than when you were small".  I obviously have problems with that philosophy - being a "tail ender" of the Boomer generation, I realize the impact of what the "Me" Generation has had - and that narcissim / lack of responsibility that is now passed to the subsequent generation. 

Part of this is a circular reason - when the $30 million Town/School budget is divided up by the 7400 residents, it is a cost of $4,054 / person.  Not voting person, not taxpayer, but each person.  I often hear that both parents have to work to make ends meet, thus government has to step in.  How come I don't hear from these same people, "hey, the reason why both parents have to work is partly because taxes are so high!".  If they were so concerned with families overall quality of life, they'd be spending their time trying to aid families keep more of their money instead of spending it for them because "we know better than you that some of you need this service more".

Here is another way to frame the question:

did the Warrant Article go too far, or not far enough?

For an expenditure of almost a quarter of a million dollars, serving what the Mr. Greene admits is a small number of residents at a cost of about a couple of hundred dollars per person for targeted programs (the Gilford Beach operation excepted), I ask the question:

Should the Warrant have privatized the Parks and Recreation department altogether?

or

The funds received by the  Parks and Recreation department from fees and charges shall be put into that revolving fund and the overall governmental funding be decreased by the same amount.

Anyways, in the vast majority of cases dealing with kids (which P&R does), parents are the key, not government.  Instead of providing an easy "out", sometimes we should be prodding them a bit more and also making it easier for them to do so. 

After all, government workers will almost always never love kids more than their parents, right? 

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

Times, they are a'changin......

Bloggers vs. the Old Way of Governing

(H/T: NewsBusters) 

Face it, three years ago, this scenario (the top guy in the Senate being rebuffed on a favorite issue) would NEVER have happened.  Senator Reid must still be shaking his head - how could these "people sitting around their computers in their pajamas" have this effect?  I spent this long to get this high, and a bunch of key pounders turn up like a humongous boulder (think Indiana Jones) flattening my version of earmark "reform"?

How times have changed.... 

Blogs are increasingly playing major roles in politics at all levels; just as in the past, new methods are supplanting the traditional ones.  Who can remember lately hearing a true stump speech (on a real tree stump!), a whistle stop address, a lecturn hall speech, true oratory (no Doug, you don't count!) deliveries and debates (think Lincoln and Douglas).  While the print media has stayed constant, radio, news reels, and then TV played an increasingly important role.  While they continue to be important (with vast amounts of money poured into tightly crafted ads), the new frontier is the Internet.

Even a plain web site is passe.  Lexis-Nexis, the Memory Hole, Google, Yahoo, and other Internet sites provide rich archives to see who said what and when (often to the embarrasment of the clueless pol trying to change his or her spots).  Blogs debate the issues of the day, often in terms and words not generally seen in typical political environs as bloggers and commenters oftentimes throwing all civility to the wind....and that's not even for campaigns!

Now, the cutting edge of political debate may well be a podcast vs a YouTube video, linked to and being linked from multiple blogs.  No longer is political time measured in months, weeks, or even days.  A critical blog entry by a political operative may flash into existence in the morning rebutted by a orchestrated video spotlighting the actual target of the attack, deflecting the objections, with a podcast of allies on the side.

The phrase of "connected politics" now has a brand new meaning - those people seeking political office know that the new media is where the attention is at - smart, connected bloggers with a political bent are now in high demand to help run national campaigns and help shape the outbound and critical messages, helping the less savvy navigate the sometimes turbulent seas of the new media.

Bloggers everywhere are changing the tone, tenor, and focus of politics everywhere and at every level.  People may not like it (certainly those that are not used to the rough and tumble ways of "everyone has a comment - or ten), but as long as free speech remains a basic tenent of our society, it is here to stay.

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

Not sure that most people understand, but the BudComm has to play by certain rules - the NH State Statutes (the RSAs) outline what SB2 Town BudComms can and cannot review.

Simply stated, if something is covered by a legal contract, a BudComm cannot review it.  Fine...that is the law.  We go by the law, we play by the rules.  We may not like them, but like all good sports, we may grouse about them but we follow them.

So?

Well, in the Town, the union contract covering many of the DPW personnel, the salaries and benefits there were off limits.  Fine and Dandy.

Ditto for the teachers - a collective bargaining agreement covering the union is off limits in most years.  Fine and Dandy.

In fact, most of the "high value" (and well compensated) in the SAU is under one contract or another.

Well, as a new BudComm member, I found out something very interesting.  Almost EVERYTHING in the School Board budget is covered by a contract.  Rendering a LOT of the Budget off limits to the oversight of the BudComm.

I am a computer consultant.  There were a number of items concerning the IT area (Information Technology) that I had concerns over - specifically those relating to access to the Internet, security of the network, software filters, and the like.  I thought that these items were high, and certainly needed looking into.

Why?  Well, the SAU purchases these items from an outside body.  Fine And Dandy.

Problem is, they were declared to be off-limits.  Why?  Contractural obligations.  And the contract did not split out the costs of the individual items in which I was concerned.  Thus, while my gut feeling is that they are overpriced, there is nothing that can be done.

And here is the REAL kicker... 

The contracts for these IT items, like a bunch of other things in the budget run July to June.

July to June.  Got that? Now answer the question - when does the budget "season" take place?

Well, it ain't in June and it ain't in July, that's fer real sure.  After all, there's a real good reason why my name (and Doug's) has been in the local papers so often these last few months.

Yup, you're right!  Budget season started in September and ends (for the BudComm) basically this Thursday (or at the deliberative sessions when anyone can ask to have money added for pet projects or subtracted for disliked items).

And YES!  You have put the two together!  How can the BudComm really carry out is legally defined oversight mission when the SAU contracts are 6 months out of phase with the review process?  And the School Board has not requested that these contracts be adjusted to be more in line with the Budget Season?

Why?  Just look at today's Citizen where the  Winnisquam Regional School Board voted to oppose the creation of a BudComm (frankly, I hope that the warrant article is a resounding success).  It shows the utter hubris when handling other peoples' money:

"The budget committee role is not geared toward student achievement," said School Board Chair David Foster of Northfield,...

No kidding, Sherlock!  A budget committee is supposed to represent the taxpayers and make sure that their hard earned money is being wisely and prudently spent.  Yet, even when doing that, I know that "ordinary citizens" understand the underlying purposes of the monies. 

...who added he would worry about the additional time and resources a budget committee would take from school administrators whose focus should be on student learning and achievement.

Right again, Mr. and Ms. Taxpayer - the bulk of the cost of the SAU can never be reviewed by your watchdog, the BudComm.  We should not question those that spend it!  Right?

The BudComms, Gilford or otherwise, are about accountability.  The action above, as well as the warrant article to dissolve the Gilford BudComm is about that.

And control.  They see BudComms as unnecessary pests - who are they to question their knowledge? 

Oh, back to the WRSB controversy and the creation of an SB BudComm

It has the support of all three boards of selectmen, and is the result of a petition generated by them.

Get that?  ALL THREE selectboards.  Now, one should assume that these town leaders have something on the ball, that they are at LEAST average wit and wisdom (and probably much higher).  if the leadership of these three boards believe and want it, and the SB doesn't,....

Does that tell you something about that School Board?

And in Gilford, by taking much of the budget out of bounds of review, hasn't the Gilford School Board done effectively the same thing? 

Posted by Skip at 08:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

And I do try to take people at their word when they tell me something....and when necessary, read / listen between the words.

Multiple times as I sat in the BudComm meetings discussing healthcare costs, I heard that these folks (re: support staff) are working for the benefits. OK, I'm trying to believe that, and exactly that!  Doesn't that mean then, that the salary is mostly immaterial if benefits are foremost? 

Yet, as soon as we did that, asking that they help pay part of the skyrocketing cost of their healthcare, and wishing to make things fairer for the taxpayer that has to not only pay for their own healthcare but also for the SAU employees, we were excoriated!  By golly, we were not looking out for the employees!

Let's review the numbers - after all, didn't the School Board make them public by distributing them to the BudComm?   The previous plan that the SAU had cost the district / taxpayers (round numbers for a family) was about $7K, or about $134/week.  The employee paid the rest (up to a total of $18K for a family indemnity policy).  Expensive? Yes! 

And the School Board wanted to do the right thing.  It's all good so far. The SAU wanted to get a cheaper plan, and did so, if you just looked at the price tag.  And ignored how it was implemented

One small problem: in getting the employees to move to this newer policy, the School Board decided that they would subsidize the entire amount.

$129/week for a single plan
$349/week for a family plan

Check that - let me state that another way - the School Board decided that you, the taxpayers, would subsidize the entire amount of the new insurance policy.  And this is when BudComm members started having problems.

Do the math - at $349/week for a family policy, that is over $18K / year.

The School Board essentially increased the cost to the taxpayers by 257% ($7K to $18K).

All I heard was that these are the lowest paid people in the SAU....yet not one mention from the School Board of the impact on the individual taxpayer.

Yes, we want to treat the Town's employees well and I want them to have similar benefits to those of us in the private sector....but not treated as a special class of citizen with much higher benefits just because of the old conventional wisdom "public employees get better bennies because of lower pay".

Well, just look here and tell me if salaries are low.

And if the School Board wishes to prove their part of the old "conventional wisdom", put their publicly funded salary & beneifit cost list out there in the public domain....they have a web site.....

Leaving aside the 12% SS taxes, income taxes, other insurance fees, et al, consider this:

The purpose of the BudComm is to analyze expenses on behalf of the taxpayers' best interest.  We are not advocates for a particular department.  We are not advocates for a particular special interest or some other sub-group. 

The special interest group on Thursday concentrated on the fact that these are good people (I'll accept that), that they do good work (I'll accept that too), and that they earn every dollar they make. 

Well, who doesn't? I work hard, and most of the folks that I know that are not retired or disabled work hard too.

I concentrate on the overall cost to the taxpayer.  

If you review the law, we are supposed to look out for the taxpayer.  Period.  Not intentions, not feelings, not emotional appeals, but simply the story that the budget numbers tell (even though some people coming before the BudComm have said otherwise have told me to do otherwise). 

Multiplied over the sheer number of people, the above numbers add up to not small numbers that must be paid by taxpayers.

All the BudComm was saying is that this was an expense not best borne entirely by the taxpayer. In this day and age, very few companies absorb the entire cost of employee healthcare - I truly wish I could name one of any size, but I cannot.  And even if I could, I DO know that they are a very small minority of companies. 

Why should public employees be treated differently than those of us in the in the private sector?  Listen to Charlie Arlinghouse of the Josiah Bartlett Center talking about healthcare funding (here, other Meet The New Press podcasts here including him talking about Education Funding here in NH), you will find out that NH state employees  have a healthcare policy that costs $22K / year. OUCH!

To make sure that the School Board understood that this was not empty rhetoric, a deduction of about $34K was deducted from the overall School Board budget - calculated by using figures of:

$5 / week for a single plan
$10 / week for a family plan 

Consider the bottom line of what the BudComm has done to create the furor:

• Town Budget - slowed its growth rate by $55K out of a budget of $10M (other changes were done to the Town Budget during the process but not directly attributable to the BudComm)
  
• School Budget - slowed its growth rate by $122K out of a budget of $22M

Those numbers translate to: 0.55% each (really, a coincidence!).  All that grief for those small amounts?

Ask yourself as a taxpayer: at those small percentages, has the BudComm gone too far, or not far enough in protecting the taxpayers?

Thursday night, special interests said howled to get the cuts recinded.  The Town Budget will be this Tuesdaynig ht (6:30pm at the High School auditorium - be there!)

On the other hand, if you believe that the answer is not far enough, start comparing the proposed budgets to their default budgets.  Come to the deliberative session.  I can assure you that there will be people willing to put more money into the budgets. 

And make sure that you count the cost of all of the warrant articles - add those all in to compute the overall budget - they too will add to the number that you will see when you open that next tax bill envelope.

It is your decision to make - become educated about the budgets.  All I ask is that you make the best decision you can for the overall interest of the Town and the taxpayers.

Note: Teachers covered under the current contract do pay some towards their healthcare

Posted by Skip at 08:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To the editor;

.
There seems to have been some confusion lately about the function of the Budget Committee in New Hampshire, and particularly in Gilford.   Is it an advisory body?   If so, advisory to whom?   What powers and duties does it have?   How does it function?

.

New Hampshire town governments, and the governance of school districts located in towns, operate under the great American principle of separation of powers and checks and balances.   We don’t have a judicial branch because that is a state function, but we do have both an executive branch, the “governing body”, selectmen or school board, and a legislative branch or “legislative body”, the town or district meeting and voters at the polls.   The governing body has the responsibility and authority for most policy decisions, especially on a day-to-day basis.   The legislative body has some policy-making power as spelled out in state statutes and especially the power to appropriate money or control the purse strings.   And while it does not specifically have the power, the legislative body, as always in the American system, can influence the executive branch policy through its control of the purse strings.

.

It is extremely difficult for any legislative body, and especially one that meets only occasionally, to function well without the assistance and advice of committees that delve into issues in far more detail than the body as a whole, and that is where the New Hampshirebudget committee comes in.   State statute, RSA 32, gives towns the authority to establish and maintain such committees, and spells out their powers and duties.   Most important, the budget committee has the power and duty to prepare budgets for submission to the legislative bodies, the people.   The submitted budgets are, however, subject to such change as the legislative bodies, the people, see fit.   Thus the budget committee is an advisory board to the legislative bodies, a part of the legislative branch of local governance. 

.

In its preparation of budgets, the budget committee has the authority and the duty to confer with the governing bodies and other officials, to receive and consider their recommendations, and to obtain from them such information as the committee may require.   It is reasonable and proper that in so doing the committee may make suggestions as to governing body policy as it affects costs, but such suggestions are unofficial and carry no obligation to comply.

.

Much has been made of the power of the budget committee under the so-called ten percent rule, the law that says the legislative body at any annual meeting may not appropriate a total amount more than ten percent above what the budget committee recommends.   But this rule is largely meaningless because differences seldom amount to more than one or two percent.   I’ve been a member or a follower of the Gilford budget committee for more than forty years and I can remember no occasion where the ten percent rule applied.   Formerly, there was a threat that it could apply in case of a proposed bond issue;  if the bond issue amount were more then ten percent of the total budget the budget committee would have absolute veto power.   However, the law has been changed so that now, in case of a bond issue, the governing body can permit the ten percent rule to be waived by the voters by simply putting some specified language in the warrant article.

.

In conclusion, the budget committee serves in an advisory capacity to the legislative body, the people, and not to the governing body.   While its actual powers are strictly limited, its power to confer and to probe with the budget requesters assures more carefully prepared requests, and its ability to inform the people is invaluable.

Dick Campbell

Posted by Doug at 02:20 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok

.

I feel sorry for the Gilford Budget Committee. I can’t believe the criticism and intimidation they must endure just for trying to get the out of control spending in line. Less than five members from the public attend most meetings. The rest are town employees or people who have special interest. I know they don’t like that term, so how about self serving or self righteous. Whatever you call it they are there to assure their pay raises, or pet projects, are not questioned. Can’t these employees, or their spouses, see that the letters they are sending to the papers are"self serving?" In years past things weren’t questioned much. Finally we have some Budget Comm. members brave enough to point out gross differences in the pay raises of town employees and the "Real World." Their efforts are met with fierce arguments and intimidation.

.
This was evident at many meeting on the fire truck issue. Chief Hayes, in short, telling the members of the Budget Comm. they were unable to comprehend firefighting techniques and apparatus. As with committee, Hayes jumped down the throat of a citizen who was just asking for clarification on something. If that’s not intimidating enough, this was the scene at a more recent fire truck meeting. A member of the public was addressing the committee only to have Hayes jump up several times yelling that his "opinion" was wrong. After Mr. McDevitt asked the chairman if he could continue a young firefighter in the crowd blurted out, as quoted in the papers, "continue to mislead us." They both should have been removed from the meeting. Mr. Hoffman has been removed for far less offensive behavior. As Mr. McDevitt was leaving the deputy chief made the snide comment "nice try." Is this how we want our town employees conducting themselves at public hearings?

One would have to wonder if they were at a town meeting, or the "Jerry Springer" show.

A few firefighters in attendance were apparently on the payroll at the time. They had on town radios and left when a call for an ambulance came in. Hopefully it wasn’t your family member in need of medical assistance. The extra minutes to leave the meeting in the town hall could have meant life or death. Do we have so many on duty that there was no work to be done in the station? I recall Hayes commenting that painting had to be subcontracted out because his men didn’t have the time.

.
Many times members of the School Board are present and asked for their input. Once called on they apparently feel they have the right to jump in at any time. This is not how a committee is supposed to operate, as Mr Phillips tried to inform them. Mr. Blanford, on the Budget and School board contended, "their on the School Board, not just from the public." Excuse me! If not asked upon they have NO more right than the public to jump into the discussion. Would Blanford, or any other School Board member, allow the Budget Comm. the privilege of interjecting at their meetings without the acknowledgment of the chairman? I think NOT.

.
The last meeting was flooded with football parents, but also para educators. Many had ties to both. That explains why no one mentioned an obvious solution. With a VERY minimal reimbursement of the para educators health benefits cost, it would offset almost double the "actual cost" of football. Nor did anyone realize that the Budget Committees’ reasoning didn’t appear to be the money for football, but the way the guidelines were changed.

I know, the School Board and Mr. DeMinico are in a "different time and place." The rest of us are still here in Gilford.

No, I’m not questioning the integrity of anyone. Although I don’t buy into the idea that because of ones service to his country, that they are above deceit. The trials for murder, rape, and other crimes against service men and women prove this. They are still part of society and all of society will unfortunately have untrustworthy people.

.
It was mentioned that if you don’t like what the School Board is doing vote them out. The same is true for the Budget Comm.. Instead, previous and current town employees don’t want to wait for that. They want to abolish the Budget Comm.. This would be a COSTLY mistake!

.
Then we had a women who is a para educator explain that she only makes $18K, plus $6-18K for benefits. This is for a job mothers used to volunteer for because of the school hours. She moved to Gilford four years ago after researching area towns. It must have been that Gilford pays the most for the, former volunteer, position she was looking for! After all of her complaining about not wanting to pay $5.00 a week for her health benefits she had the nerve to tell everyone, "if you don’t like the higher taxes, MOVE!" Are you kidding me? How dare she? She has lived here a whole four years, and being paid very well by the town. She obviously could care less about the people that have lived here most of their lives that are on a fixed income. Some can’t afford medicine, taxes, etc..

.
This is the arrogant attitude that is present throughout too many of our ungrateful town employees. I apologize to those of you who realize how good you really have it. This women reminds me of so many new residents (5-10 years) claiming they moved to Gilford for the "small town" quality. Then once their here they "NEED and EXPECT" big city services. Then to tell us "if you don’t like it move." This arrogance has ruined our town! Many wonder why the children " now a days" have no respect. Look at their roll models. Again, I apologize to those parents out there that I know are raising their kids by setting a good example.
.                                                                                       

Jim Cookman

Gilford

Posted by Doug at 02:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok,

.

What a sad state of affairs regarding the small group of petitioners requesting a warrant article to eliminate the budget committee. I can’t blame them for not wanting over sight on their budgets. Who wouldn’t want a blank check? But for the record, let me get this straight. They had to drag out the small mob that pretends to represent the town and rail against the budget committee for cutting a whopping $70,425 from the roughly $22 million proposed budget which is still up about 5% higher than last year’s budget. Yes, that means your tax bill is going up again and even more so if the petitioners get their way. I think a much stronger case can be made to support the budget committee by replacing at least three of the old rubber stamping hold outs with more conservative members. On top of this, their uninformed water carriers are making allegations with no factual basis to them what so ever.

.

Please tell me Mr. Wernig and Mr. Sanfacon, which meetings did “certain” budget committee members set policy, bully the Selectman, make indiscriminant cuts and intimidate town officials? You wouldn’t know because you didn’t even attend a single meeting! I know because I was there and all the budget committee meetings were very civil. Aren’t these the same people that claimed SB2 wouldn’t work because people would not be informed enough to vote? Now, in the safety of their special interest group, they attend the old mob rule deliberative session to make uniformed allegations about the budget committee. They get big rounds of applause which gives the illusion that they know what they’re talking about and somehow believe this is the prevailing view of the town. Thanks to SB2, the gig is up!
.

The budget committee has never tried to dictate policy and has repeatedly reminded the school board that they can NOT tell them how to conduct business. The budget committee, after hearing the presentations, simply debated and voted to not allocate additional money because the stated reason for the spending was not appropriate. 

.

As far as football was concerned, the budget committee said that the promised warrant article was necessary because it was a new line of future spending for the budget and the warrant article was one of the four conditions that allowed football to exist. According to the discussion, the four conditions ended all debate and if not for those conditions, football would not exist as it does today. If you had attended the meetings you would know this to be true. You should NOT be blaming certain members of the budget committee for doing their jobs when the school did a terrible job presenting their case. Budget committee members reminding the school board exactly what they said they would do does not make them evil people. Isn’t it their jobs to hold them accountable? I guess in Gilford, when you hold the school board accountable then you should be run out of town on a rail! Let’s not forget the petitioners tactic of using the kids to get their way when stomping their feet and pouting doesn’t work. Quite frankly, if parents used their children this way, a legal child advocate would remove them from the environment!

.

I find it interesting that the town’s municipal side of the budget didn’t have these problems. When reasonable cuts were made through civil discussion, they didn’t stomp their feet and pout! In fact, most departments came forward with cost cutting budgets on their own. 

.

I was asked why I did not attend the deliberative session and my answer was the same as to why I’m not attending the final public session. Who has any interest in attending a mob meeting with a bunch of spoiled sports that have proven they don’t play nice if you disagree with them? This is a very small group of a 100 or so people that receive money from the very budget they are going to add to at the public hearing. Let them! Thanks to SB2, the majority of us can escape the unruly mob in the privacy of the voting booth and vote NO on the proposed budget and YES on the default budget. 

.

Terry Stewart

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

Jim Annis was, and is right.  I do believe him when he said that this is not about football or the money.  While I may say it is about promises and he says it is about the process, I believe we are talking about the same thing:

To use a word from the left side of the aisle, this issue is so divisive, it should be put before the body politic.  It was so back in 2003, so it remains in 2007.  If those that are so adamant that football should be funded with taxpayer money are so certain that their cause is right and just, then just allow all to vote on it.  I don't think that I need to say much more; I've made my views known already.

However, there is one more issue (other than how badly he was treated by, as multiple Letters to the Editor have put it, the "mob" both during and after his time to speak (btw, if I were him, seeing that they weren't going to give his argument a fair shot or, failing that,  at least a polite reception, I'd would have left too).  It seemed that the crowd was taken aback when he stated that Gilmanton had no rights in this matter.

Er, he's right, no matter what emotions or sense of "fair play" might dictate.  

I also had this discussion with the official Meet The New Press broadcast engineer who thought it was very unfair.  Until I pointed out the basic process:

Gilmanton has no rights (that I am aware of) when it comes to setting or discussing Gilford's level of taxation.  None, zip, nada, nothing.

While they do pay tuition to Gilford to be able to send its students to Gilford, they have no rights when it comes to determining our level of taxation (which is set mostly by our level of spending). 

Again, although the tuition is paid for by taxes, it is funded through Gilmanton's taxes, not Gilford.  We do not set any part of their taxation rate - only an agreed upon level of tuition fees.  Some might see this as a nuance, but there is a large legal definition between the two.

Thus, no rights in discussing Gilford's School Budget.   As it should be.  Until they move to Gilford.

Posted by Skip at 07:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One of the topcs for discussion this past Thursday night from those advocating in favor of Football and against the co-pay for health care benefits were several calls for those that serve to refrain from publicly commenting on the proceedings of those meetings.

May I remind people that there is this small matter of the First Amendment?  While there are a number of rights in that Amendment, the most often quoted is the Right to Free Speech (the Government shall make no law abridging ....)

It does not say "Get elected to the Budget Committee and hang up your Rights here".  I am guaranteed that right, just as you are in the audience (both of us pursuant to the Chair or Moderator' rules running that meeting or gathering).

I see this tactic often in the blogosphere, where those of one opinion are actively protested to the point where they are literally drowned out or even physically attacked on stage (think former Senator Kerry at the New School in NY, Jim Gilchrist or Ann Coulter at various college campuses).  

In all cases, there is a group of special interest activists that believe in "free speech for me, but I get to determine what is or is not for thee!".  They mask their hatred for the opposing message by declaring it hate speech, or divisive, or wrong, feeling that declaring it as such to be sufficient for it to create silence.   Of course, they have the right to speak when and on what ever they wish.  Yet, when the opposition speaks up, they will shout down those speakers or do other things to disable that side of the story (See the antics down at Columbia University when Jim Gilchrist tried to speak).

I also put it here that quite a bit of what was said in characterizing the Budget Committee was downright wrong, and I could only shake my head in listening as it came from people that had not ONCE attended any of the public meetings of the BudComm.  

I have no problem on being rightfully skewered for facts that I mangle - and I have publicly apologized when I have done so in the past.  I do have problems with people outright distorting the actions of this BudComm - nothing is arbitrary and we all want the best for this town.  Even the folks on the BudCOmm that I disagree with are honorable folks (and yes, sometimes it takes a bit for some of the heated discussion die down a bit).  I do not denigrate any of them for holding to their views - nor should you of ours.

In answer to those that wish for Doug and I to cease speaking publicly?  Er, good luck with that!  I have no intentions of stopping my blogging - in fact, you have spurred me one and I will be doing more.  Nor will it change an iota of what I do with Meet The New Press, nor with the local media.  

A bit strident?  Perhaps, but the right to Free Speech is one I cherish dearly and refuse to lose it by not using it. Again, there is nothing that says "once elected, you hang your First Amendment Rights up while serving".  Nor will I recuse my self (as some of the "loyal opposition" would like). 

I ask - isn't that similar to those that work for the town or the SAU speaking out at meetings at which they would directly benefit from higher spending?  Should not they recuse themselves as well?

Or how about the Town Employees that signed the Petition Warrant article to disband the current Budget Committee?  Since the Library Director, to single out a Department Head, has to bring her budget to the BudComm, isn't that self serving?  A true conflict of interest?

So why should my mere speaking out be shackled?

Besides, if you don't like what I write, go start your own blog.  Easy to start, but a LOT harder to keep going for the long haul....besides, I might link and comment on what you write!

Posted by Skip at 12:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• January 16th 6:30PM GHS auditorium: Public Hearing, town budget; Public Hearing, Saltmarsh Pond easement

• January 18th 6:30PM Town Hall: Final Budcom recommendations on town and school budgets

• February 6th 7:00PM GHS auditorium: Town Deliberative Session

• February 8th 7:00PM GHS auditorium: School District Deliberative Session

• March 13th 8:00AM- 7:00PM GMS gym: Voting- elected officers, final budgets and other warrant articles, zoning amendments, etc.

Posted by Doug at 08:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A number of school employees and their spouses have filed a petition to put a warrant article before the voters to eliminate the budget committee as it stands now. Rather than being elected by the townspeople, the petitioners want them to be appointed by the selectmen and school board and to serve at their pleasure. The committee would be stripped of its responsibilities and be beholden to the selectmen and school board and not the townspeople who would have elected them.

.

This is a bad idea.

.

Because a small but vocal group feels that they aren't getting their way, meaning that the townspeople seem unwilling to bankrupt themselves in order to pay ever higher town employee salaries and benefits and feed the ever more hungry education system in town, they figure it's easier to do an end run around the checks and balances by doing away with them altogether. How is this in the best interests of the taxpayers?

.

It isn't. But don't try to tell the petitioners that.

Posted by Doug at 08:14 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 08:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, THAT was interesting - last night's BudComm meeting.

Not sure why it was called a meeting...generally at a meeting, there are discussions.  Sometimes easy discussions, and sometimes heated discussions when people of opposite and opposing views try hard to convince others of their stances. Last nite?  Not so much.  At least for the discussion side of things.  The stated purpose was to allow the Budget Committee listen to the public's input about the entirety of the School Budget. 

I looked forward to this discussion with interest - I always enjoy a good back and forth with reasoned people attempting to calmly discuss topics.  You may not believe me, given them perceived emnity between my stance (and Doug's) of how the Football process got "lost", but I did have one - but only one (with Kurt Webber).

We pretty much heard about three, and only three.  The last was when Linda Wright presented her warrant article on the sidewalk project.  No real discussion, no real debate.

The other two?  Big secret here - Football and health benefits.  Well, a discussion they weren't (and sorry for the mangled grammer).  I was not aware before going into the meeting that the use of the word "listen" mean exactly that.  It is hard to have a discussion, to correct mis-stated facts (on both sides) when only one side is allowed to speak - no one on the BudComm was allowed the same.  In those circumstances, the rhetoric tends to degenerate as people become more and more emboldened without rebuttal.

I'll tell you, I tried real hard to listen to everyone that stood up.  Yeah, a coupla / few times I'd look elsewhere.  But you know, when people try to paste, lambast, and otherwise roast one over and over almost word for word, it is hard to keep one's interest up, even when trying to.   

After all, wasn't the purpose of the most of the speakers to was to convince us "recalcitrant" ones to think like them?

Note to readers that disagree with me - invective, real or perceived, generally never changes opinions. 

The peanut gallery "whispers that really aren't" are rather distracting and lend nothing to the argument that you are trying to make. And it is never good form in a debate to use a preponderance of emotional appeals.  For me, getting hit over the head with it so often, it became emotional blackmail, attempting to portray those of us with opposing views as, well, pond scum (and that would be at the high end). 

Note to readers that disagree with me - emotional blackmail will ALWAYS fail with me.  And I will mention the lady that kept bringing up her son with the severe disability - I cannot completely understand your situation, but I am glad you are proud of your son.  However, my perception of your argument was that it came across like a battering ram.  That gets old, too, as using that tactic on rarely works.  If you were trying to "guilt" me into changing my mind, it didn't work. 

I also noticed that many of the speakers were staff from the SAU, so I guess I'm a bit surprised given that diversity is a word that seems to be so highly promoted in academia. I hear often that diversity is wonderful, a goal to be sought after, and should be ingrained in us all, valued and honored. Then how come everyone wanted me to think like them, to agree with them, "go along to get along"?  Just give in to the School Board!

And not respect and value my right to an opposing opinion? 

Seems to be a double standard.... 

Posted by Skip at 08:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 06:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 02:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 11:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This was my column as seen in the Gilford Steamer this week: 

I was glad to see football started up in Gilford. Kids derive great things from participating and keeps some in school where otherwise they'd drop out. However, as a Budget Committee (“BudComm”) member, I voted against it although it runs counter to "it's for the children" - the reasoning for inclusion in the School Board's budget. Let's review:

• The program was started and funded privately by the Gilford Friends of Football (“GFoF”).

• Permission was granted to use the Meadows property as long as it was maintained by the GFoF.

• The program has been successfully extended downward from the high school level.

• In order to get NHIAA acceptance, the School Board blessed the program, even though it was still a "club" level sport. This was done at an October 2003 meeting of the School Board.

Statements were made that taxpayers would never shoulder the bill. Greg Dickinson said "I'll make the commitment that so long as I'm alive we'll fund this outside of the taxpayer". Thus, hearing the GFoF supporters, School Board member Kevin Hayes made the motion that contained four provisions:

• One GFoF person would liaison with the Athletic Director

• Costs would be covered by the GFoF

• A five year plan for the program and funding had to be submitted.

• Any future money item with regard to football must be put before the voters on the school warrant.

First Questions First time: where is that five year plan? Since it was a requirement, it should be public record. It should be given to the press (and GilfordGrok!) for voter review.

Who's accountable? This is not about kids playing football. Rather, it is about taking on responsibilities and not fulfilling them. This is about the GFoF not speaking out about this issue. This is about a School Board ignoring its own rules to absorb a program that doesn't seem to be in trouble. This is about the BudComm, with fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers, caving into that pressure.

GFoF – why?

Did they show up to BudComm meetings to defend this change of funding? Nope, and the question was asked two weeks in a row. If taxpayer funding was paramount to keep the program alive, they should have been there in droves. Or is this the equivalent of people in an auditorium turning their backs on a speaker to show displeasure with the School Board?

Greg Dickinson – why?

He made a very public promise to a lot of people and kids stretching for a long time into the future. He has generously supported a lot of Gilford activities personally as well as via the former Village Bank and Trust and I thank him for that. But he needs to follow through on this promise.

I understand that others in the community may have made similar remarks. If I knew who they were, I would list them here as well. All should be held accountable.

School Board – why?

Again, no one has said football is in trouble. Don't buy the argument that School Board Chair Derek Tomlinson tries to make that it is such a small amount of money, $36K, a warrant isn't needed. The amount is not the issue.

The issue is that they set the rules. It is about breaking those rules and expectations. Don't buy the argument of "We are not the 2003 School Board" Without changing conditions, that is evading prior policy.

He continued: "...that the board considered drafting a warrant article...that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues a warrant article could be confusing to voters". Don't buy it – “confusing to voters” generally translates as:

 

HEY VOTERS, YOU'RE TOO STOOPID to make the RIGHT decision.

 

BudComm – why? Members complained that the way that this happened was wrong from a principled perspective. But it was framed as “approve the funding or disappoint the kids” - a false premise.

A false premise, but not the important point. What is important is that the program should managed according to the previous provisos set by the School Board. If the GFoF are stand up folks (I think they are), they'll continue funding it until properly transferred to the Town. If the taxpayer funding is denied by the BudComm, I bet the GFoF would not let football stop. Thus, the BudComm should make the decision based on the prior agreement and not on emotional appeals.

With all this said, how should the voters be seeing this? Simply, reject the emotional appeal that uses guilt as its main weapon. Accepting that argument is just a set up for the next set of folks to use the same argument for the next thing that is "for the children". Sorry, I do not believe in emotional blackmail.

Demand the School Board follow its own rules – use a warrant article as they said they would.

 

Don't buy the argument of "We are not the 2003 School Board" Without changing conditions, that is evading prior policy

Posted by Skip at 07:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Exercising the First    by Doug Lambert
When their lips are moving

Q: How do you know a Gilford [politician] [bureaucrat] [special-interest water carrier] is being untruthful? A: When they tell us that their [insert scheme du-jour here] “won't EVER cost the taxpayers a dime.”

That's right- when you hear those words, hang on to your wallets because they're licking their chops in anticipation of the day when the truth-- the fact that the taxpayers WILL pay-- is revealed.

Consider the football program. The minutes of the October 6, 2003 Gilford School Board (GSB) meeting report on a presentation by the Gilford Friends of Football (FOF) to the board, asking their sanction of football as an official sport, thus qualifying them to participate in interscholastic league play. Without belaboring the benefits of the sport as noted, the minutes contain the following statements, which I reprint in montage format: “…the endorsement [by the school board] requires no financial commitment on the part of the board… replied that there is no cost to the district; FOF would fund the program completely… He reiterated that the cost to the district is zero.” Got that? No cost. Zip. Zero. Nada.

.
At the next meeting of the school board on October 20th, 2003, the official minutes report the question of football was again taken up. During a presentation on behalf of FOF by now current school board member Kurt Webber, he stated “Endorsement would permit the team to play other teams under NHIAA, and would be at no cost to the district.”  Hmmm. What do you suppose he meant by that? Now that he’s on the school board, and changed his tune, can we surmise he didn’t mean what he said?

.
“I'll make the commitment that so long as I'm alive we'll fund this outside.” announced one prominent supporter of the FOF as they were told by skeptics that they didn't believe it would remain cost-free to the taxpayers of Gilford. As a string of supporters promised that the cost to taxpayers would be zero in answer to critics who predicted future costs shifted onto the backs of the town's property owners, the school board promised the only way that it would change would be by a vote of the people via warrant article.

.

Again, from the official minutes: “Kevin Hayes moved that the board endorse the football program as a club sport, under the following conditions: There shall be one contact person only with the Gilford Athletic Director; All costs incurred shall be paid by Gilford FOF; The board shall be presented with Gilford FOF’s five-year plan (both game and financial plan) in writing; and The program, when it becomes a money article, shall be discussed at the school district meeting as a petition article.” The motion passed unanimously after some discussion. Three present school board members were part of this action: Margo Weeks, Paul Blandford, and Sue Allen. A fourth, as noted above, gave the presentation at the meeting. That was then.

This is now. Last Friday’s Daily Sun reported that at Thursday’s Municipal Budget Committee meeting, during discussion regarding the football program’s inclusion in the school’s budget

“...Tomlinson, the chairman of the School Board, stressed that the funding for football amounted to 0.08 percent of the high school budget. He said that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a ‘consensus decision’ that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues, a warrant article could be confusing to voters.”

The Citizen reported pretty much the same—

“Tomlinson said the reason the School Board chose to include the program in its budget is because members felt a warrant article might be confusing for taxpayers who already must vote on a number of warrant articles, explaining that they might inadvertently vote against the measure.”

You see, Mr. and Mrs. Gilford Taxpayer, you’re just too stupid to be able to handle voting on such weighty matters…

And now they’ve piled on even more, claiming that their move to take over the program from its existing arrangement is for safety, as reported yesterday here in the Daily Sun. And besides, even though past promises were made, our highly- remunerated $uperintendent helpfully reminds us that the actions and decisions of one elected body have no bearing on subsequent bodies. “You can’t tie the hands of a future board.” While I agree that the board can LEGALLY do what they’re doing, I question whether they are right MORALLY.

.
After all, if they can so cavalierly discard their promises and words in this matter, can they not do so in others? What does this sorry episode in local “representative” government say about any promise that is ever uttered by these people? How can we put any faith whatsoever in anything they say?

.
Unfortunately, when you add this debacle to the long list of prior “untruths” foisted upon the hapless taxpayers of Gilford—the Meadows “gift”, the new SAU without a superintendent, the secret signing of the $uperintendent’s 5-year mega-contract, and a business park with a promised “profit”, one can discern a distinct pattern: “leaders” will say anything it takes at any given moment to get what they want. Whenever they reveal their true intent, they will simply say whatever it takes to deal with any fallout.

.
Next up: a “free” library for the town of Gilford. At no cost to the taxpayers. Really.

.
“Don't worry Charlie Brown, I PROMISE I won't pull the football away this time. I'll hold it for you. Go ahead... kick it! TRUST ME!”

.

Doug Lambert’s column appears Thursdays. He has an opinion on almost everything. For more, visit online at www.granitegrok.com and www.gilfordgrok.com. Hear him on the radio Saturdays from 2 to 4 on 1490AM, WEMJ.

Posted by Doug at 01:31 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I was very excited to see the headlines of the Laconia Daily Sun regarding the Gilford School Board’s decision to request funding for the football program. I read anxiously to finally find the answer to the question that never gets answered. What has changed with the football program?  After reading the article, it seems painfully obvious that the community is not going to get any logical explanation for this request.

.

School board member Margo Weeks dragged out the good old stand by of “safety concerns” which is a complete affront to all the dedicated coaches and support staff that currently do an outstanding job fielding teams under the safest conditions. Aside from the insult to the Friends of Football, the assertion that safety is somehow improved if the school were to control the sport is completely absurd! It has long since been proven that simply adding money to a government controlled program doesn’t improve the quality of the program. In fact most evidence supports just the opposite effect.

.

At least the other board members were more honest about their reasons. Simply put; because they can. It isn’t a secret that governing bodies are sovereign and they are not bound by previous decisions, they really can do what they want. It doesn’t matter what was said yesterday, today is a different day. This form of governing is certainly legal but definitely raises concerns of credibility. I mean it’s not like these board members descended from a different planet and joined the school board. Wasn’t it Kurt Webber that led the presentation a few short years ago for the football program? Why is he now claiming ignorance???

.

I believe that the Friends of Football are getting a bad rap here. The reality is that the school is simply taking the program away from them. After all, the school did refuse “free” bleaches that were offered by the Friends of Football. It was also the school that accepted the “free” weight room and then dramatically limited its use to the football team. It was also the school that insisted that the once volunteer coaching staff receive a stipend. Most of these dedicated individuals had no interest in getting paid. They were simply qualified football coaches that wanted to give something back to the sport and community they love.

.

I realize that the education industrial complex struggles with the concept of volunteering for free but it does happen (until they get involved). These are the same people that took a volunteer parent who wished to be a helpful aid for teachers and gave them a salary, benefits and a title called “Para-educator”. Now this group of once willing and able (free) volunteers is on the verge of possibly forming a union to demand higher wages and benefits.

.

This is a clear pattern of deceit and it doesn’t take a genius to see where the Gilford sports program is headed. Now the school board is even telling us they can lie to us with immunity and have done so in the past. It is clear that this board could care less what we think by denying us a warrant article (that was promised) to vote on.

.

These ruling elites are feeling quite comfortable in their arrogance today but the public should remind them that the former budget committee once felt that way too!

.
Terry Stewart

Gilford

Posted by Doug at 06:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

If you couldn't tell from the newspaper articles, I'm with Doug on this one.  Yes, I think that football is a great program and I was glad to see that it started up as a private activity with private funding.  In fact, my younger son was on the high school team.  He was one of those kids that didn't fit the other sports and never would have gone out for any of them.  Unfortunately, he was sidelined by a knee injury and was unable to play more than a few games.

However, as a member of the Budget Committee, I did vote against funding it via taxpayer money even though "it would hurt the children by taking away a program that they love".

My thoughts on that phrase "...it would hurt the children..."?  Nonsense and balderdash!   Let's review:

• The program was started privately by the Gilford Friends of Football (GFoF)
  
• The program was funded privately by the GFoF
• Permission was granted to use the Meadows property as long as it was maintained privately (see a pattern here?) by the GFoF
• The program was extended over the last few years from the high school level, down to the middle school, and I believe now with flag football, to the younger ages (please let me know if I have this wrong!).
• In order to play other high schools governed by the NHIAA, the School Board had to bless the program, even though it was still a "club" level sport.  This was done at an October 2003 meeting of the School Board, according to Saturday's Daily Sun.

Now, I remember the statements made at the time that the program would never be funded by taxpayer money.  Saturday's Sun makes it absolutely clear:

Greg Dickinson (former president of the sold Village Bank and Trust) "I'll make the commitment that so long as I'm alive we'll fund this outside of the taxpayer".

School Board member (at the time) Kevin Hayes made the motion that contained 4 provisions (paraphrased from the same article):

• One person from the Gilford Friends of Football would be the liason to the athletic director
• Cost would be covered by the GFoF 
• The GFoF had to submit a 5 year plan for the program and the budgeting of it.

And the money provision:

• Any future money item with regard to football must be put before the voters on the school warrant. 

First questions first (it is amazing how often that phrase can be used, huh?) 

OK, who has that five year plan?

I would think that the GFoF would have this.  I also would think, since it was one of the provisos of the blessing of the School Board, that the School Board has it.  Time to cough up a copy.  

Note: Given the way that the School Board has handled this situation already by ignoring their own official mandate, I REALLY hope that we get an unmodified version of it.  Am I speaking ahead of malfeasance?  Not really, just human nature - remember what YOU did when you got caught with your hand in Mom's cookie jar?

Further, who do we hold accountable? 

People may argue with me, but this is not about kids playing football. 

This is about adults taking on responsibilities and then reneging on them.  This is about an elected School Board trying to ditch its own rules about the football program trying to use the overall argument of "its for the children" to both use other peoples' money to make themselves feel good and to paint others as the "bad guys" (the Budget Committee).  And this is about people with fiscal responsibility to the Town taxpayers (the Budget Committee) that, as Doug wrote, caved into the pressure.

Well, here's my list so far:

GFof - why? 

Did you folks show up for the Budget Committee meeting to defend this change of funding?  No.  In fact, Doug deliberately asked, and no one stood up.  Has anyone from your organization talked to the press?  No.

You agreed to the School Board provisions in order to get your ability to play other high schools.  You as adults agreed to those responsibilities - now stand up like adults and assume them.

Doug has made the observation that IF School Board funding was paramount in keeping the program alive, the GFoF, families, and participants would have been showing up in droves - especially given the amount of press coverage.

Nary a one! 

Gee, is this the equivalent of people in an auditorium standing up and turning their backs on a speaker?  Is this a non-too subtle way that the GFoF showing displeasure with the School Board?

Who knows, if this line of reasoning is correct, they may be the good guys...I just wish that they'd speak up!  Contact me, let me know.

 

Greg Dickinson - why?

He made a public statement 

"I'll make the commitment that so long as I'm alive we'll fund this outside of the taxpayer".

He should hold himself responsible for what he said in a public meeting. He made a very public promise to a lot of people and kids stretching for a very long time.  Although I do not know him personally, I do know that he has, in the past, supported a lot of Gilford activities personally as well as through the auspices of the former Village Bank and Trust (and yes, I used to bank there).  And I thank him for that. 

But he is in the wrong, in my opinion, if he does not carry through with a promise that he made (and I doubt that anyone was twisting his arm at the time). 

The GFof should hold him accountable for setting up assurances that allowed their club to be approved,  as this is putting them in a very bad light.

It is my understanding that others in the community may have made similar remarks and promises.  I do not list them here only because I do not know their names - if I did, I would be listing them here as well.   Contact me, let me know.

School Board - why?

By far, they should be held accountable for the majority of this.

They set up the rules in 2003, now they should abide by their own rules (as we are just 3 years into that 5 year plan).  While the stated intent was to keep the program from folding, there is no data to support that.  No one from the GFof has stood up to make an appeal for funding from the citizens or to state that the program is in trouble.  To do so know would not be helpful to their cause.

I don't buy the argument that because it is such a small amount of money, $36K, that Derek Tomlinson tried to make.  He is technically correct that is is 0.08% of a $22 million budget.

Yes, I agree with Kurt Webber and others that the kids derive great things from participating - teamwork, working for a common goal, learning to show up and work hard - and keeping some interested in school where otherwise they would not. 

Those issues, though, are not the point - the point is made or broken on principles.  The Board made a promise to the taxpayers of Gilford - now keep it.

I don't buy the argument that may be raised of "Well, that was that Board; this is a different one with different members."  A promise is a promise - stand fast to your word. 

Also, according to Derek Tomlinson, the School Board (quoting from the Sun article)

"...that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a "consensus decision" that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues a warrant article could be confusing to voters"

 I do not buy this line of reasoning at all!  When I hear "it could be confusing to voters" (and this is certainly not the first or only time that this type of phrase has been uttered by politicos of all stripes), this translates as:

HEY VOTERS, YOU'RE TOO STOOPID to make the RIGHT decision.

 What a way to insult the body politic's intelligence!

 

Derek Tomlinson, Chairman of the Gilford School Board.

If the taxpayers do end up paying for freight for the program, you made a very public commitment in that IF the revenue side of the program stated in the School Board budget is not met - to the tune of $18K -

If it is not $18,000, I guarantee you I'll make up the difference."

I believe that if not this year, perhaps next year, you'll be hauling out the checkbook.  Why would the GFoF continue to work as hard as they have as you have now given them two outs - first is that taxpayers now have to pick up the bill and second, you'll pick up the tab.  Certainly, and no surprises here, if someone said that they'd be funding my program, I'd be relaxing in my efforts. 

Budget Committee  - why?

To a person, everyone complained of the way that this was snuck into the School Board budget, that this was wrong from a principled perspective.  Promises were made, and people expect those expensive promises to be kept.

A hard choice had to be made, or at least it was framed as a hard choice - either approve the program or disappoint the kids - and a no win situation.

Once again, the arguments stands on that old hackneyed phrase "It's for the children".  SO many things and arguments are made, pinned on that phrase.

Of course it is, but that's not the point. 

What was ignored is the fact is that if the GFoF are stand up type people, they will continue to fund this privately until funding and control of the program is transferred to the Town in a correct and promised manner - not by hiding it in the School Board budget.  If the School Board funding is cut, I am fairly sure that the GFoF would not let it stop now. 

"The kids will won't be able to play - it's like pulling the carpet out from underneath them". This worry should be viewed as groundless and should not play a role in a more important decision.  Again, no one has said that the kids won't play

Besides, our role is manage the overall bottom line budget.  EVEN IF WE DELETE the $36K, we only affect the bottom (or total) line - if so desired, it is my understanding that once the budget is approved, things can be moved around such that the cost could still be taken care of - just that other things will suffer instead.

 

With all this said, how should we, the voters be seeing this?   Try this for size:

The proper way to view this is holding people accountable for their actions and promises (both given and received):

• The GFof to the School Board
• The School Board to the GFof
• The School Board to the taxpayers of Gilford
• The Budget Committee to the taxpayers of Gilford as an oversight board

Accepting that argument is just a set up for the next set of folks to use the same argument for the next thing "for the children" - sorry, I do not give in to emotional blackmail. 

Instead, put the guilt on the guilty - those that are reneging on promises made.  Hold them responsible. 

Summary:  if taxpayer funding is removed, the program will still be played.  There is plenty of time for private funding to either restart or continue to pay the cost of the kids playing.  Heck, I'll even kick in a few, as it will be my CHOICE to give the money rather than having it TAKEN from me via my tax bill (which went up 20% in the last six months already - what about yours?).

Oh, one more thing - Derek?  Your line of Thursday during the meeting of:

If you're trying to insult me, that's fine....You've insulted other people in weeks past" 

This was when you were so passionate about defending the football budget and it being so small, that it should be passed.  And I had just finished trying to subtract what I believed was an even smaller amount (for what I felt were unneeded long term warranties on PCs - $4,400).

Trust me, if I wanted to insult you, I'd be using a far more subtler way of doing so instead of arguing on facts. In fact, I challenge you - who have I insulted?   Or was that another case of trying to cut off debate again?

Posted by Skip at 10:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)