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.
Since it was given to the School Board, it should be a matter of public record. Thus, I would suggest that it be given to all of the local press so that the taxpayers can review it. And I would be quite happy to publish an unadulterated (and uncommented upon) version of it here on GilfordGrok.
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
And it has to be seen in this light. Yes, the innocents (the kids) could be harmed if (and only if) the GFoF throws in the towel (and I do not expect that to happen). But that should NOT be used as an argument against doing the correct thing. Using that argument is an emotional one, one 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 "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?