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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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