GilfordGrok

Government Worker Benefits Bankrupting States - Union Head Response - Bankrupt Private Companies Too

by Bull Dog Pundit

While it might not be the sexiest of topics, it is the most fiscally alarming - the out of control costs for government worker retirement and health care benefits.  But a recent article on the huge gap between government worker pensions and private pensions startled me.

The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).

Read that again - the US government owes its workers more money (which it doesn’t have) in retirement benefits than is owes to the nation as a whole in social security.

.

But that’s not the worst part. For most of you, state and local taxes are going to significantly increase thanks those government’s promising the moon to employees, but not paying for it.

Pension promises have “gotten out of hand,” says Peter Hanson, 73, chairman of NAI James E. Hanson Inc., a real estate firm in Hackensack, N.J. His firm offers a healthy private pension - up to 25% of compensation, given to employee retirement accounts - but it is tied to profits and given as a lump sum, not a lifetime promise of benefits.

.

Governments’ generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers and pensioners. Some states - including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia - have troubled retirement systems that may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on promised benefits.

.

The financial soundness of civil servant pensions varies across the country. Government pensions are, on average, in a similar condition as private pensions - about 20% below the assets needed to be properly funded. But some states, especially in the industrial Midwest, have severely troubled pensions.

.

“The taxes needed to pay for these promises would push many of these states’ economies into a death spiral,” Chicago bankruptcy lawyer James Spiotto says.

And the public employee union head’s response to this?

Supporters of government pensions say the decline in private pensions is the problem, not the generosity of public retirement plans. “Rather than lower the bar for public employees, we need to stabilize retirement programs for everyone,” says Richard Ferlauto, director of pension and benefit policy for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union with 1.4 million members.

.

He acknowledges public pensions are getting more scrutiny. “People want to know, ‘Why should you have more security than us?’ ” he says. “It’s pension envy.”

What galls me most about this is not the fact that he’s defending the benefit. After all, he’s a union head and that’s his job. The real problem here is his failure to realize that there’s even a problem.  No mention is made of the huge tax increases on the people that are going to be required to pay for these benefits.

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

 

Posted by Doug at 07:05 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Alec O'Meara of the Gilford Steamer left a comment on my previous post, "Well, the Steamer asked to get Grokked, right?".  Rather than just leaving it as a comment, I thought that it deserved a post of its own, so I am putting it up here:

And now that it has been reproduced unaltered, it does deserve discussing... 

Skip, buddy, you're missing the point here. The issue of civility among budget committee members and the public doesn't replace money matters, it comes in next to them. For some, it comes in on top of them. I know from your writings you don't feel that the board has been uncivil this year during its deliberations. That's cool. I get that.

And that is most  of my point - I don't believe that the BudComm members have been uncivil.  I have noted that it seems only those that have disagreed with my stances or philosophies are the ones that are calling me disagreeable.

Don't get me wrong - there certainly should be civility but it should be a given and should not a campaign issue..  However, there are those (and I believe Mr. Dormody is leading this charge) that are making it THE issue in this campaign.  To the detriment of the voters, I may add, because it obscures the real fiscal issues.

What should be the issue is how the candidates will vote given different scenarios.  Would they agree with the BudComm that the SAU employees be paying some towards their health insurance, or do they agree with the School Board that taxpayers should shoulder the entire burden?  Should budgets continue to rise above (and sometimes well above) the rate of inflation, or the rate of national or regional wage inflation?  Should there be limits to how fast and how big local government should grow, or should there be no limits at all?  Who should decide what in the areas of fiscal management?

Still, if that's how you feel, why not sign the pledge?

For one thing (and you DO keep asking that question), I'm not running! Therefore, I don't need to!  So because you think this is so important, let's see who has:

 

	Dale Dormody
	Bill Phillips	_______________________________
	Terry Stewart	No Response
	Kevin Roy	_______________________________
	E. Scott Cracraft	_______________________________
	Delores Seager	_______________________________
	Bill Knightly	_______________________________
	Doug Lambert	Refused to sign

(The above was copied from Mr. Dormody's site at 7:35pm today)

Ah, let's see – Mr Dormody. Hey Alec, it seems that ONLY Mr Dormody has signed Mr. Dormody's pledge. His site has been up for a while, certainly long enough for other candidatesyet it seems that no other candidate has seen fit to sign this pledge.

Oh, wait, there is text next to two names – Doug and Terry. I know that Doug has refused to sign, so that seems alright.  Terry has been on vacation witnessing the wedding of his son so I understand why the “No Response” is there.

Yet, if no one else has responded, why isn't that tag next to EVERYONE's name? Why has Mr. Dormody singled out those two people and not being even handed and tagged everyone?

While I do not know for sure, it certainly seems to be trying to show these two in a negative light. Seems like plain politics to me – how about you, Alec? Seem a bit suspicious?

And I'll ask the more important question – why haven't the other candidates signed it? Or are they, too, refusing to sign up for a political ploy?

What harm does it cause to say, "Yes, I can be tough on spending, but I can do it in a civil manner, and here's the proof?"

Here's my take on this (shorter than before). I don't need to sign a document to show civility – and I believe that this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. If someone does sign it, and then acts in a manner that someone else considers to be uncivil, the finger pointing will begin and claims of “now you've broken the promise you signed”. Why bother with that hassle? As I asked before, who gets to play arbiter?

Sign the pledge, say you agree with Dale on this matter and the debate returns to where you want it, on dollars and cents.

IF I was running (again, which I am not – so why are you insisting on this?  My name is not listed above, is it?), I still wouldn't bother and would concentrate on the important issues.

Oppose the pledge, and the civility issue continues to get play and takes away from where you want the debate to go. That's the mistake you made.

I guess that we will agree to disagree.  Only those that do not wish to discuss the important issues will concentrate on the civility one. 

In the end (and as it should be), the voters will decide.

Posted by Skip at 07:04 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Differences - politics, and media.  Styles AND Substance 

The issue?  It is not about civility.  It is about money and the spending of it thereof with some very large expenditures in the near term future.  And that, simply, is what the campaign for the three seats on the BudComm should be about. Nothing less, but nothing more.

Can Gilford afford all of these future expenses, some to cost several hundreds of thousands if not millions:

• New Police Station
  
• New roof for the school
• New Fire Engine (no, not the one on the Warrant - the one after that)
• New plans for the Meadows - prelim plans are for a number of fields for soccer, football, and lacrosse, plus 350 car parking area.  And that hasn't touched upon the buildings.
  
• Teacher contract up for renegotiating (I put my hand up now to help - and I'll do it for free!)
  

So it all comes down to control - will all this spending go on all at once or will it be staged over time?  Or not spent at all?  The BudComm will play a central role in making these decisions, thus the campaign should not be about "civility" but about large bills that may be coming real soon.  That said....

------------------------------------------------------ 

A while ago, Alec of the Gilford Steamer was "requesting" a bit attention from us here at the 'Grok:

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

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.

Hey, Alec is becoming a Grokster!

after he was invited and was a guest host on Meet The New Press.

Well, here we go again....just for reference sake, I have already put some things down on paper (er, electrons)  here, here, and here

Well, now he's gone and done it again - this time another editorial based on what I've written here at the 'Grok.  He has to admit one thing - I do make my views known and I stand by my words.  So, I can say that I have made his job easier - and it does let me know that Doug and I have at least one loyal reader.

Anyways, Alec thinks I've stumbled a tad.  Yup, I've said a number of times that I've been the newbie in the political scheme of Gilford.  And now, he "thinks" I've stepped in it.  We'll see...

Often this year, Budget Committee freshman Skip Murphy has referred to himself as a newbie to the political process, especially here in town. Obviously, rookies get a fair amount of leeway for their actions, but this past week, Murphy made a major political blunder when commenting on Budget Committee candidate Dale Dormody's call for a code of ethics for Budget Committee members. Both Dormody's campaign request (www.gilfordbudget.com) and Murphy's response (www.gilfordgrok.com) are posted online. Read one, then the other if you want to see what we're talking about.

And I would encourage people to read both.  I strongly believe that problems are solved not with less speech, but with more.  

The other thing, since Alec didn't contact me, is that I did think about not saying anything.  Why should I - I'm not running!  It would have been far easier and enabled me to do other things than writing those posts, or this one. But that was not the reasoning.

My feeling is that the campaign race is being cast in the wrong direction.  So, this also gives gives me another chance to further describe my take on the "civility" issue, and what the issues should be!

If you don't have the time, we'll give you the quick version. Without a doubt, the behavior of the Budget Committee this particular cycle has been made an issue; there is an article on the warrant calling for the elimination of the committee itself for that very reason.

Now that Terry Stewart has returned from a brief vacation, I can see that he is also on the same page as I here. 

My overall take on this is that the people who have made this a "civility and manners" issue have politically "created" the issue. Now, some may think "great, he doesn't know when to stop digging" (and either wish I'd shut up, or keep going!).

So what is the real issue?  There are two sides to Gilford's aisle - lesser government vs. more.  Private solutions versus public sector solutions - lesser tax burden vs. more.  My contention is that with a much more assertive tone, those that advocate for slowing the rise in Town spending have been cast in the "bully" role by those more interested in "quality of life" ("QoL") issues which in their arguments, requires more government resources (the higher tax burden).  The real problem is that the latter folks are not so concerned with the cost of such (effectively saying that the cost is immaterial to the QoL issue at hand). 

We advocated for smaller government with money wisely spent because it is other people's money while QoL folks have no problem having the public sector solve the problems.  With other people's money.

Thus, they always seem to be rather upset when they are challenged as to the efficacy and the real need for these new spending issues.  Not seeing a way to get the more conservative members to back down, nor being able to convince them otherwise, they're trying another tack.

And by doing so, it takes the focus off the real issue that needs to be decided - by making the issue one of civility and "can't we all get along", the huge monetary problems that will be arriving soon to Gilford are masked.

In response, Dormody drafted a letter about 140 words in length that called for candidates for the committee to make some broad-based pledges for civility. For the most part, the comments are generic and benign enough that just about all would agree that it is important for an elected official to keep to those standards. The pledge also makes mention of some of the things the Budget Committee has been chastised for this year, namely treating all other members of the public with respect and civility at all times. There's really nothing in there that you would think was so bad.

So, upon reading it, Murphy posts a 1,000-word response to the letter titled "civility above all-a wrong motive." Seeing how the committee has been accused of being uncivil this year, it is a pretty surprising title.

First, I notice that Alec goes immediately for the word count - a real sign of the older print media and not of the New. For here, word counts are irrelevant.  Long posts are or can be normal. 

Next what I did was called a fisking - a regular practice in the blogosphere - in fact, I'm doing it here.  Often times this is done in correcting facts.  Instead, I'm amplifying my stances - adding additional thoughts and ideas at will. 

In this arena, I'm afraid, he shows that while I'm a newbie in politics, he may be such in the blogosphere.  And if he read more of how I do things here at GilfordGrok and especially over at GraniteGrok, he'd know better that it is a normal thing (try this one for another fisking).

Murphy tears the letter up, looking for any and all points he can make against why there is no need to sign a pledge that is essentially asking Budget Committee members to be nice to each other and the public.

Again, as I'm doing for this editorial! Now, don't get me wrong, I like Alec and  enjoy this back and forth a lot.

Ironically, one of the points he comes up with is that because the letter is so vague in its positive message, there's no need to sign it. Later on in the same piece, Murphy point out how parts of the pledge could be interpreted as direct comments on actions taken by both himself and candidates Doug Lambert and Terry Stewart.

As some might believe that this post is as well - different parts can have different or no meanings at all.  After all, my earlier post did start with the following:

Ah yes, time once again to play catch up from yet another biz trip.....and I found this in the Feb 14 issue of the Laconia Daily Sun:

However, he charged that in "letters to the editor, blog postings and the like" some members, a thinly veiled reference to Doug Lambert and Skip Murphy -

Kinda easy to see the inferences, eh?

Murphy was trying to mount a defense, to clarify why those particular actions don't apply to Dormody's pledge, but the fact remains that the pledge never mentions anyone by name. Murphy did that all on his own.

Well, the Laconia Sun certainly said it.  And I did observe that during the public and deliberative sessions, when folks were talking about incivility (and only those, I may add again, those that believe differently than Doug, Terry, and myself), I seemed to be within their field of vision - yup, the word "staring" does apply here.

If anything, Dormody set one heck of a political mousetrap, and Murphy grabbed for the cheese with both hands. If Murphy felt that the actions of himself and others did not apply to Dormody's pledge, then he should gladly sign the silly thing, not explain why he doesn't have to. If he feels his actions do apply, then that's a different problem altogether.

Like I said earlier, I certainly did think before applying fingers to keyboard.  Sorry Alec - this was a double trap.  I had a feeling that given the current goings on,  you'd be  mining the 'Grok for anything newsworthy (after all, you've done it before! And for which I do say, in all honesty, "thank you!"). 

And it worked - not the cheese and mouse trap, but a "hook, line, and sinker" one.  But hey, it's all about the eyeballs!  I get to write what I wanted to, you wrote a good editorial concerning it, and I get to double emphasis that I disagree with what everyone thinks is the main issue:

It isn't about civility, its about who gets to control

the money in the next BudComm session(s)

with several multi-million dollar projects coming soon. 

And that is what it is all about. 

Taking a stance against civility and ethics is a lose-lose situation. It is one that a political newbie, or n00b, may attempt.

No, a win-win-win-win situation - You win, I win (by getting my views out again), and the taxpayers win by getting a few more details that may help in deciding who to vote for. 

My hope is that the reader's vote will go for Doug Lambert, Terry Stewart, and Bill Phillips - folks that will help control the rise in spending in town - and then we all will win.

In this case, the n00b should consider himself pwnd. A.O.

No Alec, you got 'Grokked!

Posted by Skip at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Comments by Terry Stewart – 2007 Gilford Budget Committee Candidate

I find myself in a quandary regarding Mr. Dormody’s request for me to sign his code of ethics. For starters, this gives the illusion that ethics have been violated which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, who is Mr. Dormody to make this request? From what I’ve witnessed, uncivil behavior simply means disagreeing with some people. Since my return from my son’s wedding I’ve heard clear support from many people that have no trouble understanding my position on the issues. For Mr. Dormody’s benefit I’m going to clarify that position since he clearly has questions that most everyone knows the answers to.

.

1) I do have a problem with using children as props for political purposes but in the context that I described in my editorials, it’s particularly shameful. Divorced parents use children in this way to leverage a position with the opposing spouse. When the court system finds this out they remove the child from the negative environment. No sir, I do not believe we should ever use our children as political props to solve complex adult problems and I make NO apologies for that. The disagreement on football funding was NEVER about football’s existence. NO ONE disputed the fact that football has a very positive effect on children. I know this because both of my children played football and it made a huge positive impact on their lives. As much as some people tried to make it about football, much like the claims of uncivil behavior, it never was. It was ALWAYS about the funding method and who should decide. I believe the Gilford School Board and the Gilford Friends of Football leadership has done a huge disservice to the football teams and the community. They could have brought the program to the voters, as promised, in the form of a warrant article. They would have garnished the support of the community and received the full amount of funding they needed. Instead they dragged the process through the mud and attempted to shove the program down the throats of the community in a very negative way (I believe the the Citizen recorded correctly that it was School Board member Derek Tomlinson that "shouted" at Doug Lambert). They have created a divided community that, win or lose, will not “fully” support the program. They have also placed the entire school budget in jeopardy; shame on them. I believe in the concept of a football program done correctly.

.

2) Should I attend all Committee meetings? As an average taxpayer I can chose to attend any public meetings I wish however as an elected official I would make every effort to attend all required meetings. I would weight the public’s input of those meeting accordingly. For example; a public meeting of 200 attendees represents less than 5% of the towns registered voters. Of those 200 attendees 2/3 of them have a direct conflict of interest. Not that their opinions aren’t important, the key word is “weighted”. In my humble opinion, ANY CANDIDATE that believes that the opinion of 200 voters should carry 100% of their consideration toward budget votes should not be elected because they are ignoring the other 4000 or so voters.

.
3) Rubber stamping elected officials? ...

                                          ...I believe that elected officials that blindly accept the rising cost of employee health insurance should merely be passed on to the taxpayers are definitely rubber stamping the process. It was suggested to the School Board a number of times to seek alternatives to the rising cost of health insurance. This suggestion was routinely ignored. This is how the conversation evolved that led to a vote to reduce the budget by a minimal employee contribution toward those benefits. That’s correct. It wasn’t the evil budget committee that dreamed that up. It was clearly a response to the non action brought on by the School Board. I believe this issue will gain NO sympathy from the taxpayers because it has been common place for the private sector to be bearing the increases on health insurance for many years. Co-incidentally, my wife informs me during this writing that, yes, we will be paying more this year. And for the record, I’m still waiting for my automatic guaranteed raise. Don’t foolishly mistake this for professional jealousy. You’ll find this theme consistent with  most working families today. There’s a great book that I suggest everyone read. The title is “Who Moved My Cheese?” by Spencer Johnson, MD. This book was written in 1998 and issued to many private sector businesses for the sole purpose of getting employees and managers to understand that things change and we need to change with them or starve.

.

4) A promise to represent all taxpayers? Interesting thought but in a democratic representative government that question doesn’t apply. If I claimed to represent ALL taxpayers that would make me a dictator wouldn’t it? I represent a set of ideals and those voters who share those ideals can vote for me. If I gain more votes than my opponents then I win an elected position to promote those ideals. If I lose, then I have to live with the decisions of my opponent’s ideals until such time as they are replaced by an election. That, my friend, it what shapes a democracy! For example: I have a US Representative named Carol Shea Porter. I can tell you with absolute certainty that she DOES NOT represent me!!! I don’t expect her to see things my way even if I get 5% of the State’s population to go talk to her. I don’t expect her to sell out her values. My solution is to help support a candidate to run against her that reflects my ideals. I do however posses the ability to change my position when I hear a reason that makes good logical sense. That doesn’t mean the same bad position stated three different ways as was the case with the football presentation. 

.

Summary:

I hope this clarifies some of Mr. Dormody’s concerns. Clearly I stand for justified and sensible spending. I understand that we need things to sustain town growth and smoothly run the town. I also understand that we need good employees and capital items to do that. But, I also understand that we don’t need to do everything at once. Moderate growth is good growth and employee compensations need to be realistic, fair and on par with similar positions in the private sector or any sector for that matter. I believe most taxpayers can relate to that.

.
Sincerely,
Terry Stewart
2007 Gilford Budget Committee Candidate     

Posted by Doug at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

These are the articles that will be on the ballot March 13.  They are as is - no commenting in this posting.
 

Warrant Articles – 2007

Article 1. To see if the town will raise and appropriate the sum of $1,025,000 to purchase the development rights on the Bean property (map & lot numbers 228-012 & 210-034), which borders Saltmarsh Pond and to authorize the issuance of not more than $1,025,000 of bonds or notes in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Finance Act (RSA 33) and to authorize the Selectmen to issue and negotiate such bonds or notes and to determine the rate of interest thereon. (Passage of this article shall override the ten percent limitation imposed on this appropriation in the event of non-recommendation by the Budget Committee) The Selectmen recommend this appropriation. The Budget Committee recommends this appropriation. 3/5 majority vote required.

Note: this was changed at the Deliberative Session to add back in the $13K for the NGOs - Non-Governmental Organizations.

Article 2. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to enter into a long-term lease/purchase agreement with no non-appropriation clause, to purchase a new fire truck in the amount of three hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($325,000) payable over a term of three years and to withdraw one hundred and twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) from the Fire Equipment Capital Reserve Fund for the first year’s lease payment. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation. 3/5 majority vote required.

Article 3. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,659,122. Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,449,495, which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only. This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles. The Selectmen recommend this appropriation. The Budget Committee recommends this appropriation.

Article 4. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of two hundred seventy one thousand, six hundred dollars ($271,600) to be added to the Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. Recommended by the Selectmen and the Budget Committee.

Article 5. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. Recommended by the Selectmen and the Budget Committee.

Article 6. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Ambulance Replacement Capital Reserve Fund previously established. This sum to be raised from taxation. Recommended by the Selectmen and the Budget Committee.

Article 7. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1 for the purpose of funding Compensated Absences and to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 8. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Building Repairs and to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 9. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1 for the purpose of funding the Police Facility and to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 10. To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Sewer Maintenance and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 11. To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate sixty three thousand five hundred dollars ($63,500) to purchase a Highway Truck. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 12. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for the Laconia Airport Authority to be disbursed upon written notification that the major capital improvements have been approved by the Federal, State and Local agencies, as well as being in compliance with state and local land use and environmental requirements. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 13. To see if the Town will raise and appropriate ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for invasive species management. This shall be used for milfoil removal in Smith Cove. The Selectmen and the Budget Committee recommend this appropriation.

Article 14. To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Selectmen to accept the donation from the Friends of the Gilford Library, a non-profit corporation, by deed, of land and buildings to house a new Gilford Public Library, provided that the building has been substantially completed and a certificate of occupancy has been issued prior to conveyance.

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.

Article 16. To adopt the provisions of NH RSA 41:14a to grant the authority to the Selectmen to acquire or sell land, buildings, or both; provided, however, they shall first submit any such proposed acquisition or sale to the Planning Board and to the Conservation Commission for review and recommendation by those bodies. After the selectmen receive the recommendations they shall hold two public hearings at least ten but not more than fourteen days apart on the proposed acquisition or sale; provided, however, upon the written petition of 50 registered voters presented to the selectmen prior to the selectmen’s vote, according to the provisions of RSA 39:3, the proposed acquisition or sale shall be inserted as an article in the warrant for the next town meeting.

Article 17. To see if the Selectmen will appoint a Welfare Director, rather than electing one annually. Appointment to be effective April 1, 2008.

Article 18. Are you in favor of changing the term of the town treasurer from one year to three (3) years, beginning with the term of the town treasurer to be elected at next year’s regular town meeting?

Article 19. To see if the Town will vote to designate as part of the Town Forest under RSA 31:110, the Weeks Tract of 236 acres, more or less (part of the tax map 238-005.000) purchased by the Town in 2005, to authorize the Conservation Commission to manage the property as part of the Wilson-Weeks Town Forest in accordance with RSA 31:112, and to authorize the placement of any proceeds that may accrue from forest management in the Conservation Fund to accumulate under RSA 31:113.

Article 20. To see if the Town will vote to rescind the establishment of the Budget Committee under the provisions of RSA 32:14, and in its place establish an advisory budget committee, with authority limited to making recommendations to the Selectmen and School Board on their respective proposed budgets. If approved this advisory budget committee shall have six (6) members, who shall be appointed by the Board of Selectmen, with input from the Gilford School Board. The members shall serve staggered terms, beginning the year of adoption with 1/3 of such members appointed to hold office for one (1) year, 1/3 for two (2) years and 1/3 for three (3) years, and each year thereafter, 1/3 shall be appointed for terms of three (3) years and until their successors are appointed and qualified. (Submitted by Petition)

Article 21. To see if the Town will go on record in support of effective actions by the President and the Congress to address the issue of climate change which is increasingly harmful to the environment and economy of New Hampshire and to the future well being of the people of Gilford. These actions include: 1. Establishment of a national program requiring reductions of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions while protecting the U.S. economy. 2. Creation of a major national research initiative to foster rapid development of sustainable energy technologies, thereby stimulating new jobs and investment. In addition, the town of Gilford encourages New Hampshire citizens to work for emission reductions within their communities, and we ask our Selectmen to consider the appointment of a voluntary energy committee to recommend local steps to save energy and reduce emissions. The record of the vote on this article shall be transmitted to the NH Congressional Delegation, to the President of the United States, and to declared candidates for those offices. (Submitted by Petition)

Posted by Skip at 10:26 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The following is information for energy efficient design of the proposed new Library and proposed new, added, police facility. All of this information has previously been provided to those design committees, and as of 2-17-’07 none of them has responded in any way, thus it is time to reveal all to the public and see if they want energy efficient facilities, or prefer to spend mega bucks in the future for heat and cooling. Note that in the past years the previous bad proposals for a new Library and new Police facility were overwhelmingly voted down due to the grossly energy inefficient designs (designs of the dark ages).

Gilford voters, please contact those 2 committees and get their current design data, before you vote to support a total unknown. Most of us want a greatly improved Police facility, and an expanded Library, but we DON’T want an energy & maintenance disaster, such as the current town hall.

Summer cooling in NH might not seem to be a big problem, but when totally wrong expensive design leads to triple cost of cooling, and construction, it is a MAJOR problem. "Conventional and often wrong" methods triple the construction costs PLUS the outrageous cost of equipment, and is subject to all energy cost increases! Maybe worse, since occupants often don’t accept designed "cooling", they demand the silly idea of openable windows to counteract good ventilation and cooling design. Observe large, multi story buildings: all fixed windows, and most spaces with no windows! In a Police Station, windows are a liability! Windows should all be placed HIGH so no one outside can view in. The only purpose of windows should be for minimum light to find the light switch in a room! As such they can be non opening, 10 layers, and not be a severe heat loss liability.

In NH cooling can be totally free: The ground is always COLD (which is the MAJOR problem with the badly designed Gilford Town Hall, the Gilford Community Church lower level, and major police station problem). The existing police station suffers from cold ground contact at floor and back wall, which leads to condensation, wet and cold rooms. We should never suggest another building with the same bad problems (as the previous police facility committee did)!

Instead, ...

make use of the cold ground: Raise the bottom floor off the ground, ie, a standard old crawl space, so floor can be easily insulated, and use the area below as plenum to cool and dehumidify air in summer. Simple calculations show that the cooling effect of air to ground contact in NH will greatly exceed all the cooling needs of a 4 story building. By doing this you avoid all costs of "air conditioners and between floor ducting (extremely expensive)". (Any good engineer can do those calculations: if he can’t, fire him as a total failure!)

Based on the previous FPC study, the cost of using mechanical air conditioning is not only outrageous, but requires increasing the wall heights 2 foot per level just for ducting. The resulting increased cost of siding, wall studs, and heat loss, greatly exceeds the small cost of building with double 2x4 stud walls spaced 24" or more, for insulation like the famous NH Ice houses (insulated with sawdust). With modern Fiberglass insulation in that space we can double the insulation of those old good ice houses. Is that enough? NO! Back in 1950 when oil for heating cost $.10/gallon, they thought 2x4 walls with fiberglass insulation was enough. Now heating oil costs $2.80/ gal which is soon to rise. Walls with 2x4 studs are 3.5" thick. To match heating cost of 1950 we need walls (2.80/.10) X 3.5" thick, = 98 inches thick!!! That is 8+ ft thick!!! Clearly that is more than we ever before considered, but, also, gasoline at $2.26/gal is much more than we ever considered. (Gas was $.14 when I graduated from college in 1955).

My 2005 and 2006 proposals were that we build with double 2x4 walls spaced for 24" thickness. The above indicates that I was much too low, by a factor of 4, and proposal for a building with 2x6 stud walls was off by a factor of 18!

Clearly, any new proposal must consider energy costs. Start with cooling & ventilation costs. Simply building with a "crawl space" 3' or more high, can result in base level floor 20 times warmer. In summer, filtered air blown thru that crawl space can provide all the cooling and ventilation ever needed, at cost only to blow the air. I invite ALL of you to visit the police station, or the Gilford Community Church, to feel how extremely cold their bottom floor is.

In 1958 I converted the crawl space under our house in Los Angeles to a heating and cooling plenum chamber. That provided all the cooling we ever needed in that house, simply by running the heating fan in summer. In the process I learned that many tract homes were being built that way in the mid west. Now, 49 years later, the builders and architects act as if even a crawl space is an untried, unknown feature, much less using it for cooling! Where are the modern "minds" going, ignoring what was well known in the past? At 74 am I merely a relic of the past? Surely the "new" engineers can do nearly as good as we did in the past! At the minimum, we MUST reject all town proposals for buildings which can’t at least be as efficient as the house I built (on an extremely tight budget) 32 years ago.

Walls must be very thick to contain required insulation. Again, look at the past successes: The old ice houses were built with two walls spaced 2 to 3 feet apart, with the space filled with sawdust, a good bulk insulator. Churches, such as the Gilford Community Church, were built with about 2' wide spaced double walls for insulation and soundproofing. The biggest opposition I’ve heard to very thick walls was the appearance of windows, yet I’ve never heard of any objection to appearance of the windows in churches, and no one who has visited us has even noticed the small effect our15" thick walls have on windows! Last year my suggestion for 16" or 24" thick walls was too little! Now the needed 98" thick walls also indicates that we MUST look at other heat loss areas as well.

In many homes & buildings, air leaks around windows, doors, and sometimes even through walls, are a big cause of heat loss. I built my house here in 1975, using Ambassador Homes to prefab panels for floors, walls, and roof. That reduced costs to 1/3 expected, and speeded erection to 11 days instead of expected 3 months. There were fit problems, which I guessed were minor. But the next winter, when I compared heat we were putting into it against calculations, and found loss was 3 times expected, I assumed there must be a gap between roof and wall, letting hot air escape. My long detailed calculations showed the gap had to be, 1/2", which was unbelievable. But the next summer, when the final siding reached the roof, we found the gap varied from 1/4" to 7/8", (which we caulked tight!) Today we find in all good construction the walls are protected from air intrusion on outside with Remay or Tyvek and on inside with at least 6mil. Polyethylene vaporbarrier, and all joints at top & bottom of walls well caulked.

Even most doors and windows are now made with excellent air seals. BUT, where they insist on openable windows, cost limits them to no more than 2 or 3 layers of glass, at best the insulation of a wall 1" thick, .01 times as much as needed. Add a "storm" window and you get the effect of another 1/2", and then can’t open it. In the homes of the rich, who care not about heating costs, they use many large fixed "picture" windows, rarely more than 1 or 2 glass layers. In my home, with 300 sq ft of "picture" windows, for great views of the lake & mountains, it would seem extravagant, except that all of them are 8 layers thick (2 glass and 6 Mylar layers), an insulation better than 2x6 fiberglass filled stud wall. Depending on how you get it, glass can cost from $.50 to $3 per sq ft. (We got it for $.50). The Mylar film cost us $.02 per sq ft, and I have enough in stock to offer it FREE for added insulation in all windows of new Library and extended Police Facility.

In homes we place windows for the view, and also daytime light. In a Police Facility, employees are too busy to be distracted by outside views: like in the Church, windows must be placed high so no one can be distracted by something outside. The same applies to a Library, where the only reason to be there is to find and/or read books or research matter. Since most adults often find they can only go to the Library when it is dark, there must be enough electric light INSIDE for them THEN. The cost of adequate flourescent lighting for 24 hours a day is far less than cost of heat loss through usual windows. Observe our current very nice Library, with many windows covered by stacks of books: I’m sure no one would demand that the books be removed so they can see out the window!! The heating and ventilation system in that nice Library is seriously flawed, which should instruct designers of a replacement to avoid all the problems, not duplicate them! As we often joked at Hughes Aircraft Co., about new projects "we are not going to repeat any old mistakes: we’ll just make all new ones!" Well, the 1^st part should be our objective, and the 2^nd part be avoided.

In extended Police facility, it is essential that all windows (if any) must have lowest part no lower that 6'2", must be at least 8 layers of glazing with at least 6 being at least 1 mil Mylar (making it impossible to break through), and outside trim may not form a sill wider than 1", for safety. Windows are only to provide a bit of light for finding the light switch (not needed if light switches are marked with small night light or better.)

In the new Library, all windows must have lowest part no lower than 6', so no outside distractions can degrade the reason for being there. Lighting must be adequate (but not excessive as many contractors try to force on you to raise their profits), for easy reading at any time: early morning, overcast days, dusk, and at night. Windows must all be fixed, not openable, so that the designed ventilation system will not be defeated by capricious acts of occupants. All windows must be insulated to no less than R 18 value. All entry/exit doors must be triple: an entry foyer between two doors, the inner of which must have a backup insulating door. All entry doors must have a small window in them, adequate to allow a person 3' tall to see another person on the other side.

The previous silly "architects" for police facility wanted you to waste mega $$ on outrageously priced foam insulation and steel stud construction. All known foam insulations cost 6 to 10 times fiberglass for same insulation, and are of value ONLY when there is a severe space restriction. Steel studs increase cost over 2 times, and are dangerous in a fire, since they collapse at temperatures far below what wood structures survive (look at the 9-11 twin towers collapse due to steel folding at temperatures wood would take!). Stick with proven fireproof fiberglass, at lowest cost per insulation value!

I have detailed drawings of all recommendations here. I will make copies of any of them for anyone, as I have previously done for the Library and Police facility committee, or, anyone can visit me (make an appointment) to go over them in detail. I will try to get copies put in this document soon.

Jack Stephenson Retired Senior Staff Engineer (Hughes Aircraft Co.)

22 Hook Rd., Gilford, NH 03249 293-8526 John@warmlite.net

Posted by JackS at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Ah yes, time once again to play catch up from yet another biz trip.....and I found this in the Feb 14 issue of the Laconia Daily Sun:

However, he charged that in "letters to the editor, blog postings and the like" some members, a thinly veiled reference to Doug Lambert and Skip Murphy - "were labeling all town  all town employees as dishonest, and engaging in name-calling against many other Gilford residents and elected officials." (link to his page here).

As I said in my post here:  

Mr. Dormody, you and I have traded emails.  We have had discussions on the phone.  I even met you at Dunkin' Donuts one Saturday morning.  At none of those meetings could you really come up with times that respect was violated during the meetings.  And you finally had to admit that at no time was the 'line crossed" during the meetings or otherwise.  You DID have issues on style points, but that was it.

Sounds like he says one thing "in person" to me, yet another to his cyber readers and to the reporters.  

So once again, I ask a question of Mr. Dormody - which is it?  And if you insist that it is that statement on your site, go ahead and prove it - list the examples where either I or Doug explicitly calling people dishonest! Just remember one thing - calling an argument "dishonest" is different than calling the person stating the argument dishonest.....or is that a "lost" difference?  Tell me who I have called a "name"?

Oh, and as far as the Delphi method is concerned?  I have a real good example of that...but that will be for another post.

Posted by Skip at 02:49 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

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

Once again, a comment on what seems to be the main thrust of Mr. Dormody's campaign - the main emphasis on the BudComm should be politeness.  I commented on this here, and in this post, we'll look at his code of ethics he wants those running to sign.

IMHO, it doesn't mean much, with no teeth and totally depends on what a person believes is the difference between civility and incivility.  His code is as follows:

Budget Committee Candidate Code of Conduct

As a candidate for the Gilford Budget Committee, I take seriously my responsibility to work on behalf of ALL Gilford residents and taxpayers.

At the risk of being call uncivil right from the get-go, I really cannot believe that ANY candidate who is at all serious would not take this responsibility seriously. Thus, does this really have to be in a signed document? Who the heck wouldn't admit to it?

Or, does Mr. Dormody think that some do not?

I understand that property tax levels are an issue for ALL residents and taxpayers,

This I disagree with, as there some in Town that really do not care!  They have either a sufficient income or wealth such that, for the property they own, it really does not matter if their tax bill goes up, even substantially. 

Thus, why sign something that is not provably true?
 

and if elected I will work diligently to ensure that the budgets and warrant articles recommended by the committee are responsible, fair, and tight.

And here is the biggest problem with Mr. Dormody's thinking, and let me illustrate it with a real life example. 

What say you, Mr. Dormody?  Would you allow that funding for a new position?  I was advocating for a responsible and tight budget - would you have voted down that position?  Or preferred to see government grow needlessly (IMHO)?

Do you believe that it is fair that the School Board basically gave taxpayers a 250% "pay cut" with respect to support staff healthcare insurance costs when it raised the amount of money taxpayers now have to pay - and not require the support staff to pay anything towards their own care?  To whom is that fair?

How would you have voted, Mr. Dormody? 

I will make every possible effort to attend all meetings, including and perhaps especially those public sessions where the opinions of Gilford residents and taxpayers are requested. 

Even the RSA makes allowances for absences - just make sure to tell the Chair so that it will not be an unexcused absence.  I admit, due to biz trips, I missed a subcommittee meeting and a regular BudComm meeting.

However, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled swipe at Doug, as he missed the Public session on the School Budget.  Why? When a large customer says "visit", you do so. Once again, under the guise of trying to establish civility, Mr. Dormody seemingly is using it to score political points.

Should I be elected, during my entire term as a representative of all Gilford voters and taxpayers, I pledge to treat all residents with respect, both during public meetings of the committee and in all other public statements and writings. While we may disagree, we can do so with civility.

Once again, this seems to be aimed at both Doug and I, with another swing at Terry Stuart due to his Letters to the Editor.

Mr. Dormody, you and I have traded emails.  We have had discussions on the phone.  I even met you at Dunkin' Donuts one Saturday morning.  At none of those meetings could you really come up with times that respect was violated during the meetings.  And you finally had to admit that at no time was the 'line crossed" during the meetings or otherwise.  You DID have issues on style points, but that was it.

Yes, I was the one who said "I will not check my First Amendment rights at the door" during one of the last BudComm meetings.  I said it then, and I will say it now, and will say it in the future.  

This ongoing saga of Political Correctness is madness, and this whole ethics thing is not much more than just that, a form of Political Correctness.   By casting someone else's speech as un-PC , or other than how you would like to define it,  is keeping it in a limiting and may be cutting off future valuable discussion. 

This is true even if you might disagree  with the possible tone of such a discussion (which is and of itself, free speech).  And that, by definition, is muzzling people's opinions and the right to say what they want in the matter in which to say it.

And remember this - you are, in effect, asking people seeking a governmental board to restrict their speech and be willing to be judged by what they say.  I really hope that you do not believe that this would be a legally binding document, for it would be laughed out of court on First Amendment issues.

I say this, not to be contrarian, but to really take to heart the ability of  anyone to say what they  feel they should in discussing the issues of the day.   

When it comes down to it, this whole code of ethics really depends on one's political outlook.  So again, who gets to judge if someone is in violation of this code of ethics? You?  Me?  An appointed jury of whose peers?

Or is this, as I believe it to be, just a device to be used as a political punching bag later on?

Frankly, my advice to any of the other candidates is to not sign this particular pledge - it is too vague, as it really depends on interpretation of what one person thinks of another's words and actions. 

Posted by Skip at 08:45 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Mr. Dormody has now opened his first salvo in the BudComm campaign season with his new website. Like anyone with a vested interest in the outcome of the campaign, I have my thoughts about it. And yes, you will soon know of them.

However, before I do so, let it also be known that of the eight candidates running for the three open positions, I am endorsing (in alphabetical order) the following:

• Doug Lambert
• Bill Philips
• Terry Stuart

As opposed to Mr. Dormody, whose only Letter (that I am aware of) concerned itself with how the BudComm was perceived – as opposed to what it was trying to accomplish. I commented on that Letter here – long on discussion of civility but not much on the actual functioning or tasks at hand.

I guess that will be the voters choice – style versus substance. Mr. Dormody and those other candidates that espouse civility over getting something done. Let's face it – it seems that at least Mr. Dormody's campaign is founded on this single issue, as his website states:

We need to work together to move the town forward, instead of driving wedges between this group and that group in order to further the political goals of a few.

Let's discuss this, shall we, as while it may seem to be just a single sentence on the site, it speaks volumes as to what this campaign will be about.

Take the phrase “need to work together”. At first blush, it seems to be innocuous enough. Hey, what's wrong with that? Well, immediately it brings to mind the phrase “go along to get along”; we should agree only to disagree on the small items, as going to the bigger ones would mean that we REALLY disagree, right? It seems that this is the crux of the matter – that the members of the BudComm must agree with each.

Yet, that immediately means that no major item or philosophical areas can be debated (for then we are not working together, right).  Unfortunately, that would all but muzzle BudComm discussions, as then, we wouldn't be together, right?

What is the core matter here is that there are two very opposite views of government and their impacts on the local cost of government.  And these two opposing views will engender debate - some of it "lively" bordering on “raucous” – and it seems to be anathema to Mr. Dormody's sense of style.

Now, to “labels”, which Mr. Dormody is already tossing around. In his attempt to make civility his main thrust, he has already slandered / libeled / insulted (to use a few words aimed in our direction) us! By insinuating that we are driving wedges, that we are trying to further the political goals of a few, he demonstrates a few things.

First, that he either dares not or cannot bring himself to name names. Why? Well, first thought is that he would have to defend his allegations. So I ask him outright:

• What are those wedge items?
• Who are those “few”
• And what are those political goals?

And let's us know - are we the the butt of your ire?  Are you looking to score points just because we talk and talk and talk....and disagree with you?  Please? 

The last is rather simple. There are two types of people in politics. The first is someone that wishes to be someone, that gets part of their identity by being part of one group or another. The other is kind of person what wishes to accomplish something – gee, a goal! Goals are good as they set a target to meet and set in motion ways to get there. It just seems that it is all the rage to paint them as “political” if you disagree with them.

Anyways, go ahead Mr. Dormody, tell us what our "political goals are" in running for the BudComm and how you disagree with ours - in detail!

I'll even help you out, as mine is simple:  watch out for the common taxpayers by trying to slow the rise in government growth (thus the resulting tax bite) to come as close to the rate of inflation (plus a smidge more). Simply, it is to protect the little guy, and that's it.

I'd love to know from you, Mr. Dormody, what my other "political goals" might be....I'm listening!

And since Doug and I believe in the same thing, and Mr. Dormody disagrees with us, what do you, the reader, believe his might be?

Taken all together, I get the impression from Mr. Dormody that everyone needs to be in a Kumbayah frame of mind when serving on the BudComm.  And that is his main concern.

Posted by Skip at 08:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Analytically Speaking
 

It all depends on what kind of label you are talking about and to what it is has been attached (and who does the attaching). On products, labels are good things, as they outline what the product is, who markets it, what it does, and the “stuff” that makes up that product. Often times, labels go beyond this factual information by including marketing suggesting that the product is the best for its stated purpose such as “Number One!”, or “Prescribed more often by”! Hype? Perhaps, but descriptions help - try figuring out what an unmarked box of “something” is supposed to be without one!

Labels aren't just for “products” and this will be proved true during the coming year. After all, given that the November elections and holidays are now past, now is that peculiar Silly Season that comes to NH once every four years – the Presidential Primary.

Yup, politicos of all stripes seeking the highest office in the land are marching to our frozen state (much to the dismay of the established media – “what, Ma and Pa Kettle's Diner and Sleep-in AGAIN!”). Ever optimistic, these high office seekers (who see the next President every time they look into the mirror), will trudge around our environs to do the “meet and greet” and participating in our vaunted “retail politics”. Putting on the “camera” faces and smiles to look good to the public and for the media, they seek to make the needed impressions so that they can wear the coveted label “NH Primary Winner”.

In doing so, other types of labels will be slung around like they were wood chips at a lumber yard. This person will be called this, another will be called that, and retractions, submissions, subterfuge, clarifications, changes, and the like will be come everyday fare. To what end? Obfustication comes to mind – using labels to mask what they really are about or to throw a cloud over where their opponents stand on the same issues.

Thus, many people decry the use of labels, simply because of the misuse of those labels during these intensive periods of politicking. Others are against them as this pigeonholes them when their strategy calls for being other than what they really are.

Yet, they do serve useful purposes when used properly. For instance, there is a move afoot in Laconia to return to the time of partisan elections. Already there are those that, almost in knee-jerk reaction, that have made it known that they are against this, as “partisan” has become a “word non grata”. Why? It is an identifiable mark, Democrat or Republican, on those that may wish to remain otherwise unidentified as to their political foundations (if they have any).

With non-partisan elections, anyone can run and no one has to declare how they feel on the issues. For example, can you tell me, of the eight people running for the three BudComm positions, who is liberal, moderate, or conservative? Or, if you prefer, Republican or Democrat? Or do they all meld into that “unknown” category, making it harder to figure out their stands? Without a track record to review, they can say pretty much anything that they would want while revealing little, springing a surprise after elections.

For some, a return to partisan elections really means a return to a focus on political party affiliations. In my eyes, this would be a good thing, as the “unknown” would be a thing of the past. By associating with a party, the public would have an idea from the get go as to how candidates may vote on issues. While it is always true that there will always be the exceptions to the rule, it is hard for people to be other than what they really are over time.

So why is this important? Not everyone is a political junkie, hanging on every nuance from a town or board meeting or newspaper article. However, they do have an innate feeling as to the general differences between Republicans (generally conservative) and Democrats (generally liberals). While there are wackos at each end of the spectrum, those a bit closer to the middle of each party will generally share an outlook with that party on what government is supposed to be and do.

So why would this be good for Gilford? With a “label”, one should know how a candidate would stand on most issues, thus leaving more time to discover the exceptions to the rule and how those may affect a vote for or against a particular candidate. Or, give one a chance to sharpen their questions for a given candidate to find the truth...

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

A group of Town and SAU employees (according to Roslyn Roy) is sponsoring a night where the candidates for the Selectmen, Budget Committee, and Board of Fire Engineers can each speak to the issues and their stances. Wish I could be there, but am here in Chicago instead.

All I say is GO, LISTEN to the candidates, and ask EVERYONE the same hard questions (yeah, sandbagging may be great on TV, but doesn't give the candidates a chance to really represent themselves).

Let them speak, and as it happens, let them get themselves in trouble.  Some may not need much prompting....   

Posted by Skip at 06:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The NH Department of Education announced the 2006 test results of the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP).  This is a standardized test that is given to Elementary and Middle School students all across New England.

The ratings are as follows:

Level 4 - Proficient with Distinction

Level 3 - Proficient

Level 2 - Partially Proficient

Level 1 - Substantially Below Proficient

In the chart below (from the State), N is the number of children tested in that category.

In the following two charts, I've taken the liberty of collapsing Level's 4 with 3, and Levels 2 with 1 for a quick analysis.  I think that the charts speak for themselves:

In effect, between 21 and 28% of Gilford's children are not meeting norms for Grades 3 - 8.  In effect, almost 25% of the kids are below where they should be.

To put it into context, here is the State average: 

The overall state average of below proficient is about 29% -  a difference of only 4%.

My question is: does Gilford's academic results truly show results reflective of Gilford's above average budget?

Posted by Skip at 08:58 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I still am marveling at the amendment that Dick Campbell offered on the #29 - The Petition Warrant to abolish the BudComm that is accountable to the voters and replace it with one that was responsible only to the Selectmen.  As worded, it had NO responsibility to the School Board.

Basically, this was a change from being a tool of the legislative branch (the voters) for actual change as needed to a strictly advisory role to the executive branch (the Selectmen) that could dismiss any recommendations without cause.  Appointments would strictly have been the domain of the Selectmen.

Mr. Campbell's amendment tickled the fancy of this engineer - a simple and elegant change (and above all, engineers love simple and elegant).  His offer?  Just delete anything past the mention of the RSA that allowed the BudComm to be deleted. 

Which also deleted the pseudo-BudComm entirely. 

Thus, in my mind, it also accomplished the goal of bringing the conflict into more and sharper relief - have a BudComm or no BudComm at all.  Nothing in the middle, and certainly got rid of the toothless version of the BudComm that might have swayed some that failed to think the amendment through a number of scenarios (including the one where the Selectmen and School Board might be at odds over some power struggle, and the Selectmen could take advantage of the SB by manipulating the makeup of the pseudo-BudComm (hey, worse things have happened in politics, right?  This would be rather tame in comparison to some political shenanigans).

I also thought it amusing when Phil Arel (I guess the author of the Warrant and certainly a signatory to it) hotly disputed the right and legality of Mr. Campbell to make the motion to amend his Warrant.  While not going to the level of being apoplectic, it was obvious that he realized the ramifications of what the amendment would do - pretty much doom a vote for it.  Peter Milham, the Moderator, made the correct ruling (later backed up and proved right) by allowing it.
 

And it continued to be amusing.  Because of the "closeness" of the voice vote, Peter Millham asked for a "stand up vote' to be done and asked if there a few folks would be willing to count the standees.  When I noticed that not enough offered their assistance, I raised my hand. 

Joe Wernig (sp?) did get a tad upset by shouting "But he's on the Budget Committee", trying to make the implication that I would not be honest in doing the count since it had to do with the BudComm.  Sure thing! Right! Even if I was the type that would be willing to cheat (no, I'm not), did he really believe that with a few hundred people watching that I'd be stupid enough to even try?  Would it not be obvious that someone supporting the Warrant be checking my counting anyways?

It was amusing to hear, again, Mr. Millham step up and say "I think it is fair to say that he can count straight".  Mr. Wernig became quiet.

And the amendment passed. 

Posted by Skip at 08:16 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yet another biz trip....a little bit to time to do a bit more blogging.

This time, the Laconia Daily Sun's account (Feb 9) when it quoted Lou Athenas Jr.:

Football is a wonderful thing for this community...it is now time for the entire community to offer its support.

No doubt, football is a good thing, and does great things for the kids - not only does it give the kids an after school activity (something that Leo Sanfacon made quite clear that we all HAVE to do during the Parks and Rec review) but it does teach them life lessons.

I just don't agree that then entire community believes that it has to agree with Mr. Athenas's belief.  Nor do I believe that everyone is so enamored with the way that it has been done either.   Certainly, not former School Board member Kevin Hayes or the former School Board Chair Jim Annis either! However, we will find out on March 13th when the entire Village has the chance to vote.

We shall see.

On the put-back of the monies deleted from the staff benefits?  Tom Chase did do a comparison of 100% payment by other towns - my question to him is 100% of...what?  Relying solely on the percentage of who pays what is not sufficient for the discussion.  One has to know what the plan costs taxpayers and employees too!  Just stating the provider of the plan (BCBS, Pilgrim, et al) is not sufficient either, as each offers a variety of plans at different costs).

Yes, I did sit on my hands during the meeting.  Consider this:

• The School Board wanted to switch to a lesser cost plan - which they did.  Fair enough - The original plan had taxpayers picking up $7K of the cost of that plan - a family's portion could be much more than that.

• "Great!" was my response when I first heard that.

• Problem!  Go ahead, ask the School Board what the cost of the new plan is.  Nothing for the employee, so you know who is picking up the entire $18K tab (remember, I'm in Chicago as I write this, so if the exact number is off, I apologize....but the order magnitude is right).

This is a $250% increase to the taxpayer...and this is why I was against having the taxpayer on the hook for the whole thing!

• At the meeting when the BudComm decided that the expense (and the attendant fairness issue of  taxpayers shouldering the entire burden), Paul Blandford passed out a sheet showing what the impact would be on those support staff that would have to pay either $5/week or $10/week (single or family) payment towards their healthcare plan.

He lamented that this would, in effect, be a pay cut. 

Yet, not once at any time in this debate did I hear any School Board member lament the implicit pay cut that the taxpayers will have to take in order to fund this huge economic benefit to these employees (e.g., a support staff earning $16K with an $18K healthcare plan costs the taxpayer $34K).

Not once.  For the  employees, yes.  The taxpayer, no.  Not once.

So I ask - who is the School Board representing (in this area) - the employees, or the taxpayers?  And ask yourself, who should they be representing?

Go ahead - I urge you,  all of you, go to the SAU office (Town Hall building on the back side, bottom floor) and request what is public information - salaries and benefit costs of the SAU employees!

Anyways, back to the meeting results.  So, the BudComm decided to rescind its blessing on the SB budget.  Why?  It should be rather simple, shouldn't it?  If we didn't agree with those monies in the budget before, why should we now?  We voted, 7-3, for our prepared budget....and not the SB budget.

And before some people get bent out of shape ("what about the NGO money put back into the Town budget!"), part of the reason why we continued to support the Town budget was:

• Over the years, there is a history of putting NGO monies back into the budget.
• The members also realized that the Selectmen and Sr. Town Management were willing to work with the BudComm and that they did accomplish some major changes that will benefit the taxpayers in years to come.
  

In my opinion, the School Board offered nothing except "we'll look at it in the future"; compared to the Selectmen, there was no sense of compromise on the part of the School Board.  In effect, the insistence was that NOTHING could be cut.  This permeated all of the discussions and IMHO, the BudComm took this into account in its vote.

One good example is the Warrant Article that the BudComm is not recommending.  Once the BudComm had examined and discussed the Article, the School Board was asked to re-word it as it was overly broad (originally, it was described as being needed to redo the control system for the HVAC system).  It was resubmitted the following week with no substantial changes - the School Board said that while it was discussed, they felt that it needed no changes. 

Note: I just cannot let this pass - when the article was split between page 1 and page 6, the subhead on page 6 was "Budget Committee rejects will of 155-58 majority".  This is true ONLY if one considered that this was the end-all-be-all meeting.  Pre-SB2, it would have been.  Now, with SB2, it is not.  And it is for that SB2 vote that we changed our recommendation on the School Board's budget. Then, the majority of voters will have spoken

And unlike Leo Sanfacon who publicly stated  at one of the Deliberative Meetings [paraphrased] that SB2 was the worst thing that ever came to Gilford, I think it is one of the best things that the voters have ever done.  Participation is up and now everyone has a deciding vote on this issues and candidates - no longer can people simply out-wait or out-last those that do not agree with them and then vote on items when they know that they own the mindshare of the now-remaining majority.

Posted by Skip at 08:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

From the Laconia Daily Sun, 2/2/07, the article dealing with the SAU Deliberative Session;

Thomlinson pointed out that once the bottom line budget figure is adopted, the School Board has the authority to transfer funds between accounts and if the appropriations are not restored, could chose to fund both the health insurance and football program, assuming the money is available.  He said that this was among the reasons that the board resisted proposing a separate warrant article to fund the football program, explaining that if the article failed, the program could not be funded by transferring funds. 

Perhaps I see this a bit too cynically, or perhaps not cynically enough.  Essentially, as the School Board Chair, Derek Thomlinson has basically stated that no matter what the BudComm did, not matter what happened at the SAU Deliberative Session, and no matter what happens at the March vote, the School Board will do what it wants to do.

Does anyone else see this?  And noticed that no one else has commented on it?

We have heard from Phil Arel at both Deliberative Sessions that the BudComm is "out of touch".  Yet, doesn't anyone else see the dichotomy with what the BudComm is being accused of, and what the School Board has said it WILL do?

The voters at the Deliberative Session overrode the BudComm.  That is what voting is all about, and the SB2 process worked.  According to the RSA, the BudComm could change its recommendation as the budget amount had been changed.  We therefore changed our recommendation.

However, the most important thing is what the majority of ALL of the voters think come March 13. 

Yet, Mr. Thomlinson has effectively stated that it didn't matter what the BudComm did, it wouldn't have mattered if the monies hadn't been put back in during the Deliberative Session, nor what the voters do in March.  

In essence, if I read the paper correctly, the School Board will do what it wants.  Period.

Thus, even if the voters vote down the amended budget in March, do you think the School Board will listen to the voters?

If not, will Mr. Arel state that it is really the School Board is out of touch with the voters?

Posted by Skip at 07:42 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Well, THAT was interesting!

I attended the Town Meeting Tuesday nite.  Well, a lot of it was "housekeeping", especially in terms of the Planning and Land Use folks wanting to update a bunch of articles (and yes, we will be posting them up here!).  And then there were a couple articles that really weren't in that category.

Best thing, however, was sitting with DCE of Weekend Pundits (who was a guest on MTNP this past Saturday) and the WP Dad during the whole thing.  And, to be honest, I appreciated his words in support of the BudComm (and I did not know that he was going to speak beforehand either).

Certainly, almost everyone on the BudComm expected to see the NGO (Non-Governmental Organizations) monies put back in.  What the BudComm had done was reduced the original amount of arond $103K by almost $14K.  As Dick Hickok said, it is not because the the BudComm members thought that they were not necessary.  Rather, these are non-profits and the members felt that they  should be supported by individuals and not by government taxation.  The only exception is when there is an actual pay-for-service arrangement as there is with the Humane Society for animal control.

I agree with that sentiment.  I have other charities that I give to and really do not wish my TAX money going to those particular organizations.  Nothing personal, I just have others with which I'd rather give my money to.  Thus, I agreed with Doug and with Neil Flagherity (sp? Sorry!).

Those that were in favor all used the phrase "quality of life".  Fine by me; they are entitled to their opinion, but I am entitled to mine.  My disagreement is not in that these services aren't needed by some, but forcing your fellow citizens that may ever wish to give money to these NGOs to do so is not right. If all these folks felt that it was so important that these organizations receive funding, why won't they all band together and fund raise for them privately?  What is so wrong with that idea or philosophy?  Why must donations be coerced from all by the force of involuntary government taxation? 

NH used to be known for its individualism and self-reliance.  When bad things happened, relatives, friends, and communities would band together to help out....but on a voluntary basis - by doing so via taxation, it is forced. 

The numbers: at $103K total and 7,400 residents, that is an involuntary contribution of almost $14 / person for all of the NGO contributions by the Village.

I'll go stereotypical for a moment with this.  One definition of a Liberal is one who has no problem in spending someone else's money if it is for "the common good", Conservatives (those misers!) prefer to let people keep their own money and let individuals spend it the way that they want to.  And yet, it seems that people would be surprised by the answer to the question of "Who gives more - Liberals or Conservatives?"  See here for the answer and scroll down to 12/02/06 and listen to Dr. Arthur Brooks in Hour 2.  Dr. Brooks also has found a positive relationship to governmental support of NGOs and private charitable giving - as governmental monies go up, private contributions go down.  Not only that, but when government steps in, volunteerism also goes down, leading to a lessening of the public participation overall (and not just in the area of the charitable organizations).

Let's change the scenario a bit for thoughtful contemplation: suppose the overwhelming sentiment was that the Town should support the NRA as it has wonderful programs for youth and women.  Would those that are so willing to send someone else's forced donation to the above NGOs be as willing if those funds were targeted for the National Rifle Association?

No, I didn't think so. And not because they teach self-defense in a way that many disagree with.  Or really, that is the point.

More later....

Posted by Skip at 08:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Once again, with family matters, biz traveling, the BudComm season wrapping up, and a whole bunch of things taking up time, I haven't been posting all that much.  I've got a whole stack of stuff from the local papers that I have clipped, thinking that I'd have time back then to comment on them...well, not so much.

So instead of complete fisking, I'll settle for a just a few comments.

Laconia Daily Sun - Jan 10 - Letter to the Editor from Dale Dormody.  Yup, this is the guy seemingly in the mold of Senator John Kerry of MA (remember, he voted for the war before he was against it?).  Well, not quite the Iraq war, but it seems that with signing the petition to erase the current Budget Committee (along with his wife, the Library Director whose budget would no longer get the same scrutiny), it seems that he was against the BudComm (the petition) before he was for it (signing up as a candidate).

Anyways, I digress.

He has a couple of points that he tries to make "negative, accusatory, inflammatory tone being set by a few of its most vocal members".

“They start with the assumption that the town employees and school board members are, at best, trying to artificially inflate budgets so that they can spend our tax money with abandon, and at worst, are downright dishonest.”

Um, try reviewing the percentage rise in the budgets over the last few years....and then tell me that I don't have a number to stand on.... 

"decrying the evil intentions of Gilford's educational / industrial complex"..."There is no educational / industrial complex here...there is instead Paul, and Derek, and Sue."

Ah yes, camouflage.  There is that bumper sticker that says words to the effect "What a day it will be when the Air Force has to have a bake sale to fund a bomber". 

Remember, the US spends about $450 Billion a year on the military.....and spends over $500 Billion a year on education.  If the lesser number gives rise to the "military / industrial complex", so can more. 

Nice try in an attempt to personalize things. Please consider, however, that at a $22 million budget, education in Gilford is one of the largest businesses in town. And yes, it is a business – a Board, employees, strategies, marketing, capital goods, real estate, paying taxes (primarily income taxes) and with services as products. There are white collared professionals, blue collared professionals, and unions involved in the production of those services. The only difference between it and any other business is that its primary revenues are obtained via taxation which seldom decrease.

"This mean-spirited approach to carrying out the public's work"

You know, I really wish that the conference room had already installed the CCTV cameras and that they had been operational this past BudComm season.  It seems that the people who are tossing out the words "mean-spirited", "divisive", and the like are from the side that are used to getting what they want  Now that there are those that are questioning the status quo that has been the norm for so long, we are automatically pasted as "meanies".

Imagine that - people who are willing to stand up against the status quo and are willing to not only ask hard question but are willing to continue the discussion!  People who will not "get along to go along".

It has been often said that people from Gilford don't air their dirty laundry in public - and I have heard that not only from Gilford folks but from a number of people from around the area.  Face it, these folks think we Gilfordites are snobs, that we are the "best", and that we think our poop don't stink.

Sorry folks, but we all put our pants on the same way (either one or two legs at the same way).  No one is any better than another.  And just like anywhere else, if one does not address problems openly and emphatically, they will only fester.

But once again, I digress.

Frankly, from my view, it is those that are complaining are those that seldom came to any meeting (Mr. Dormody excepted – he came to most of the meetings).  

You can stop the use of the word "divisive" you know - just agree to agree with me!

"By the way, I also personally believe that the members of any publicly elected committee should refrain from using the public forum as a means of promoting their own personal ventures, including blogs, newpaper columns, and radio shows.  Cut it out guys.  Grow up, carry out the duties we've entrusted to you, and find a way to keep your level of discourse in the range of reasonable adults.

I have heard more vitriol and vindictiveness from those that disagree with me than I have certainly used (including another person that sat on the BudComm that used the words gutless and asshat).  And I probably would be right in assuming that other conservatives on the board are held in similar esteem. For all of the talk I hear from more liberal types, they can certainly been mean spirited to the max (wander over to the Democratic Underground site and take a real look at what mean spiritedness can be).

Well now, after trading emails, a couple of phone calls, and a sit down meeting at Dunkin Donuts, you still think I am not reasonable? 

First, tell me where I have NOT carried out those official duties?  Nice to throw out the accusation - now back it up!  Other than missing a meeting because of a business trip (and that was cleared with the Chair beforehand), I think you would be on thin ice on this one.

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

Posted by Doug at 09:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Meet the New Press" today at 2PM on Newstalk 1490, WEMJ. Your phone calls accepted at 527-1490.

Hear what the "fuss" is all about!

Posted by Doug at 08:27 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

• Bill Phillips
• Doug Lambert
• Terry Stewart
• Bill Knightly
• Dale Dormody
• Kevin Roy
• E. Scott Cracraft
• Delores Seager

It would behoove the astute voter to fathom which ones are representing the various special interest groups benefitting from escalating town and school budgets. Who in the list will ask the questions, introduce motions, and not be afraid to seek alternative means of accomplishing leaner, more efficient methods and procedures, despite the intense pressures from spenders? I'll bet you know who it is... and who it isn't.

Posted by Doug at 09:11 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, we need to take ethics complaints seriously. But when we are faced with claims that should be summarily dismissed, we should summarily dismiss them. That’s what I tried to do last Monday, and there was no support from the other selectmen. I believe we were wrong to put Larry Pickett through another unnecessary public spectacle.
.
This will go down as an interesting episode in town history. Many of the allegations had common themes that hark back to the old days: a selectman should follow customary channels for getting information out; disagreeing on policy matters is “undermining” town staff; and robust public debate is to be avoided.
.
To me, an important subtext of this ethics affair was a last-ditch attack on the open, free-market-of-ideas culture of the blogs. Thank goodness the information age prevailed. We are moving forward, not backwards.
.
Thank goodness, also, that the First Amendment squeaked by in Milford.

Posted by Doug at 08:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)