GilfordGrok

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!