Stewart responds...
The following was submitted to GilfordGrok for publication. As always, we welcome any and all submissions. We will print items in their entirety, reserving the right to comment in a followup, separate posting.
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
Comments
Well said.. The accusations are nothing more than a ruse to distract people from the true issues at hand.
SPINDOCTOR
Posted by: Mike H | February 22, 2007 05:51 PM