GilfordGrok

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