GilfordGrok

Click here to view the video.

Posted by Doug at 02:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1

In today's Citizen there is an update to the Code of Ethics. It seemingly has been put away for a while.

It also relates that Joe Hoffman showed up, gave a bit of history, and disputed that the Selectmen can put them into place on their own:

Prior to this, recent selectman candidate Joseph Hoffman brought a bit of information on the subject of these ethical codes to the attention of the board.

Hoffman pointed out that at the 1996 town meeting a petition Warrant Article, Article 10, was presented to the town to enact a very similar code of ethics. The measure was later defeated but this did not negate point Hoffman had to make.

Hoffman took issue with published comments by Town Administrator Evans Juris that because the new Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct are considered policy issues they could be approved by selectmen.

Hoffman said that codes would require a public hearing and might even need to be submitted to voters.

Since it didn't state it in the article, I bet the RSA that he brought forward is the one at the bottom of the post - RSA 31:39-a that states that the Legislative body can implement this....and does not mention the Executive branch being able to do so. 

============== 

Even the best of intentions can go awry and run afoul of "stuff".  I am hoping that this is one of those cases.... 

And I thought I was verbose at times.  For once, I think I can say something shorter and faster:

Obey the laws (always),do the right thing (always), and

be nice (at least the vast majority of the time).

I don't think that Gilford needs this overwritten and overbearing Code of Ethics.  Yes, there may be some problems in a few cases - but those should be able to be dealt with as single cases and not running to define exact cases and exact solution.  By overwritten, I believe that it tries to go down the path of legislating behavior, with the adding problem of who gets to determine the yea and nay of that behavior - which can be very dangerous if the wrong person is in charge or is of the opposite political persuasion and wishes to take advantage of that.  Effectively, this is like Mr. Dormody's CoE writ large and on steroids.  By overbearing, it may be better put as overreaching - this is an instrument not of the Selectmen's doing, but created by the Town's professional staff by does require the buy-in and approval of the Selectmen.  It assumes that  the Selectmen, as the Executive  branch, has the authority (as written) to determine behavior of all boards and commissions in Town both to determine stated behavior goals and remedies (such as removal from such boards and commissions) when the accused are found guilty.

Problem is, according to State RSAs, they do not have such authority over the independent Boards in Town - the Budget Committee and the School Board.  I'm no lawyer and am only fundamentally acquainted with the RSAs, but this has as much chance in court if challenged as this guy does long term  in our localized global warming temps.

Now, I was told verbally and again in an email that the professional staff has been working on this for a quite some time.  I do have to wonder about that, when I google just a few phrases from the below CoE and start getting hits on other places that have the same thing?  I have no problem with reusing usable and applicable stuff, but I have a hard time with the phrase:

Here are the draft versions of the proposed codes.  We have been working on them for quite a while

"quite a while" when I can see that this document is not much more than a screen scrape.  Especially if you go to the end of the document and see that even a screen scrape was not done correctly - it helps to get the name of our Town right. 

Besides, why would we want a Code of Ethics taken almost literally word for word from another City?  One that is has a population of 130,000, awash in money from Silicon Valley, and is facing slews of problems that just don't apply here in our small village?

Anyways, time for the actual text of the proposed CoE - along with commentary!

For Public Officials of the Town of Gilford
Adopted by the Gilford Board of Selectmen

Preamble

The citizens and businesses of Gilford are entitled to have fair, ethical and accountable local government which has earned the public's full confidence for integrity. The effective functioning of democratic government therefore requires that:

• Public officials, both elected and appointed, comply with both the letter and spirit of the laws and policies affecting the operations of government;
• Public officials be independent, impartial and fair in their judgment and actions;
• Public office be used for the public good, not for personal gain; and
• Public deliberations and processes be conducted openly, unless legally confidential, in an atmosphere of respect and civility.

To this end, the Gilford Board of Selectmen has adopted a Code of Ethics for members of the Board of Selectmen and of the Town's  other boards and commissions to assure public confidence in the integrity of local government and its effective and fair operation.

Read the Preamble....effectively, this description of how government should work, via elected and appointed, is Patriotism, Mom, and Apple Pie.  Who wants, or could be, against this?  The problem is not with the Preamble but how it implemented. 

Not only that, but keep the following in mind:

• Does this follow the RSAs of New Hampshire?
• Does this fit the Town of Gilford?
• Does the Board of Selectmen have the authority to put this on ALL boards / commissions in Town?
  

Also and again, if you don't like this version presented here of the 'Grok, go to this link - read it word for word there....except it is for the CITY of Sunnyvale, CA (and if you are not familiar with it, it is the center of high tech land in Silicon Valley - you can smell the money).

What does this summarize to?  Be nice.....follow the law.  Anything else is an attempt to legislate behavior.

1. Act in the Public Interest

Recognizing that stewardship of the public interest must be their primary concern, members will work for the common good of the people of Gilford and not for any private or personal interest, and they will assure fair and equal treatment of all persons, claims and transactions coming before the Selectmen, boards and commissions.

As with the "shot down" Advisory Budget Committee, who will be in charge?  My example then was if the Selectmen had a beef with the School Board, it could have been stacked that Advisory BudComm against the SB and voted down anything they wanted.  Just because it is politics.  Ditto over the issue of civility - I would not want someone of the opposite view with and idea of "winning at any cost" sitting in judgement of my behavior. 

The same is here - the fundamental problem is not wanting eithical behavior; rather, who enforces it and how?  And who has that legal authority?

2. Comply with the Law

Members shall comply with Federal and State laws, as well as the Town of Gilford’s Ordinances and Policies in the performance of their public duties. These laws include, but are not limited to: the United States and New Hampshire constitutions; laws pertaining to conflicts of interest, election campaigns, financial disclosures, employer responsibilities, and open processes of government; and Town ordinances and policies. 

This seems to be a circular item.  Sure, all elected  and appointed officials need to follow the law.  However, these RSAs should be enumerated here - much of this is may not be pluggable here - remember, this Code of Ethics is from Sunnyvale.  What laws govern our elections?  Determine what financial disclosures are needed at our Town level?  And what is the law or ordinances governing employer responsibilities here in Gilford, and how the heck does it apply here? 

Is some of this not even applicable?  Sound good, but does it work?

And if this Code of Ethics is approved, or if one signs it, does this Article make it enforceble ? 
 

3. Conduct of Members

The professional and personal conduct of members must be above reproach and avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Members shall refrain from abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks upon the character or motives of other members of Boards and commissions, the staff or public.

Just like during the campaign for the Budget Committee, the major question is "who is the arbiter"?  While all of us may feel we know what "abusive conduct, personal charges or verbal attacks" may be, who is the final authority?  What I may feel is merely heated debate is uncivility and I could be brought up on charges.  All it takes a difference of opinion on civility.  Or a difference in political philosophy.  I hate to put it this way, but in the "wrong hands", this becomes a political club.  As this campaign season proved (again, if someone signed Mr. Dormody's Code of Ethics and got elected, they have now promised to act with civility at all times....no matter what).

In some circles, "divisiveness" is worse than a four letter word and can shut down an argument whether or not that discussion should be shut down.  Too often, political correctness demanding behavior can ruin a needed discourse.
 

4. Respect for Process
Members shall perform their duties in accordance with the processes and rules of order established by the Selectmen and board and commissions governing the deliberation of public policy issues, meaningful involvement of the public, and implementation of policy decisions of the Selectmen by Town staff.

I'm ok with process - too a point.  I've worked in large organizations where process overtook the real issues (let's have a meeting to talk about an upcoming meeting that discusses the bigger meeting).  Protocol becomes king, and the real issues that keep an organization vibrant and that have to be dealt with get left in a ditch.

The primary question - does the Selectmen have jurisdiction over the Budget Committee (no) or the School Board (again, no)?  If my info here is wrong, the Code of Ethics should state the RSAs that govern this and allow for it. 

The Selectmen do, and should, for all boards or commissions that fall under their aegis, but those should be explicitly listed.

But no others.  For example, how could the Budget Committee truely review the Town budget without fear of recriminations if it was not an independent Committee?  Again, take the the worst case scenario and run with it.

5. Conduct of Public Meetings

Members shall prepare themselves for public issues; listen courteously and attentively to all public discussions before the body; and focus on the business at hand. They shall refrain from interrupting other speakers; making personal comments not germane to the business of the body; or otherwise interfering with the orderly conduct of meetings.

Scenario - orderly conduct.  There is a heated debate going on....and all it would take would be a warning that the "limit" has been reached....stop.  Or suffer the consequences.

I also have a problem not being able to interrupt someone that is blatantly wrong - or is going off the deep end themselves.  There are times when people should be stopped - this could disallow it.

The problem is that a consensus has not been reached but that a decision has not been made.  I'm not of the opinion that a consensus among members of a board has to be the end all of all situations.  It may be, but that should never be the ultimate aim - a firm decision should be that goal.

6. Decisions Based on Merit

Members shall base their decisions on the merits and substance of the matter at hand, rather than on unrelated considerations. 

Bogus....if what I know, if what I have researched, has not been able to reach the discussion, I have no intention of giving up that in the face of an argument.  Unrelated considerations means...what?  If I go to someone that I believe is an expert and others don't go with me, I should not be able to bring that discussion to the table?  This also may have the effect of mico-discussion - trying hard to "stay on topic" to the detriment of the 'big picture".

I think not.

7. Communication

Members shall publicly share substantive information that is relevant to a matter under consideration by a Board, Commission, or Committee, which they may have received from sources outside of the public decision-making process.

Again, this Code of Ethics can be seen as a play for the "how" a decision can be derived - setting up standards for process.

8. Conflict of Interest

In order to assure their independence and impartiality on behalf of the common good, members shall not use their official positions to influence government decisions in which they have a material financial interest, or where they have an organizational responsibility or personal relationship, which may give the appearance of a conflict of interest.

If this Article stopped here, it would have been a good thing.  Instead, like many good things, on the idea of "more is better", it kept on going. 

In accordance with the law, members shall disclose investments, interests in real property, sources of income, and gifts; and they shall abstain from participating in deliberations and decision-making where conflicts may exist.

Which law?  It should be enumerated so that no clarification would be needed.  I asked, and the intent was for a full financial disclosure....I think NOT.  I have no intentions of giving this information to any one with it being legally necessary - and I doubt that the Selectmen will find it an easy time obtaining such from all of the volunteers in Town.

WHY do I need to disclose my assets?  Go to both extremes - if I am rich, or if I am poor.  Why would I want to tell someone know how well I have done (or not)?

Consider too - things get leaked - on purpose or by accident.  It happens in politics all the time...why give it a chance to take root here?

Recuse your self? Absolutely!  But on one interpretation being that a full financial disclosure must be handed over will have the very quick result of many in Town refusing to serve.  Depending on who that might be, some might think that would be a good thing (and yes, this past year has made me a tad more cynical than I used to be), and with others, a crying shame.

9. Gifts and Favors

Members shall not take any special advantage of services or opportunities for personal gain, by virtue of their public office that is not available to the public in general. They shall refrain from accepting any gifts, favors or promises of future benefits which might compromise their independence of judgment or action or give the appearance of being compromised.

Again, accepting gifts and favors is not "doing the right thing".  I fully agree with this.

10. Confidential Information

Members shall respect the confidentiality of information concerning the property, personnel or affairs of the Town. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization, nor use such information to advance their personal, financial or other private interests.

I agree with most of this.  The part that I don't is obvious - First Amendment Rights.  There are some in Town that believe what Doug and I do on the 'Groks and on Meet The New Press should not be done.  Others laud what we do.

My take is this - more turned on flashlights can only be a good thing for the Town as a whole.  RE: BudComm - we have not discussed anything in Town in the way of budgets BEFORE it has become public knowledge at a public meeting.  However, once that has happened (with reporters in attendence), anything then is fair game.  Any thing less is an abridgement of rights.

11. Use of Public Resources

Members shall not use public resources not available to the public in general, such as Town staff time, equipment, supplies or facilities, for private gain or personal purposes.

Agreed.  The only part (which has been granted in the past) is being able to use the Town network for Internet access during official meetings to be able to obtain Internet based resources / information during Town oriented discussions.  Even though I would be using my personal laptop in that case, I do not believe that this is the same thing as, say, taking a ream of paper or using the Town copier and use it for "my" purposes.

12. Representation of Private Interests

In keeping with their role as stewards of the public interest, Public Officials shall not appear on behalf of the private interests of third parties before any Board, Commission, Committee or proceeding of the Town.

This does not affect me personally. However, being a small Town, I could see this as a problem in the real estate industry.  There are only so many people to go around, and this could present a real problem, for this example, for bankers, brokers, and lawyers.

As long as it is stated up front what the relationships and outcomes might be, this could be handled well....but again, it does mean that everyone takes the phrases "obey the laws" and "do the right thing" seriously and always.  This should not automatically lock someone out of a situation of serving and trying to make a living.

13. Advocacy

Members shall represent the official policies or positions of the Town to the best of their ability when designated as delegates for this purpose. When presenting their individual opinions and positions, members shall explicitly state they do not represent their body or the Town of Gilford nor will they allow the inference that they do.

No problems here.....

14. Policy Role of Members

 

Members shall respect and adhere to the Board of Selectmen structure of Gilford Town government. In this structure, the Board of Selectmen determines the policies of the Town with the advice, information and analysis provided by the public, other boards and commissions, and Town staff.

Day to day policies - yes.  Just as the School Board determines the same for the SAU.  The BudComm has its own fiscal policies (e.g., the right and responsibility to add or remove money from both budgets).

A blurb here concerning the separateness and independence of and from the Board of Selectmen may be a good thing to put in somewhere concerning the BudComm and the School Board.  After all, most of my "complaining" is about a proper separation of powers.

Public Officials therefore shall not interfere with the administrative functions of the Town or the professional duties of Town staff; nor shall they impair the ability of staff to implement policy decisions.

I have no problem with the above paragraph in so much that requests filed via the proper methods by members of independent boards and commissions are not stalled by the professional staff.  It is a two way street.

15. Independence of Boards and Commissions

Because of the value of the independent advice of boards and commissions to the public decision-making process, Public officials shall refrain from using their position to unduly influence the deliberations or outcomes of board and commission proceedings.

Again, see Article 12.  In a large city, this may be more of an issue.  Here in Gilford, there is such or can be such an overlap, it may be hard not to be serving on board and then be coming before another.

Again, stating conflicts of interest up front and publicly (doing the right thing) is the right way of going about this.

16. Positive Work Place Environment

Members shall support the maintenance of a positive and constructive work place environment for Town employees and for citizens and businesses dealing with the Town. Members shall recognize their special role in dealings with Town employees to in no way create the perception of inappropriate direction to staff.

Good intentions?  Yes.

For the most part, practical?  Yes

In all situations?  No.

All one has to do is go back to the discussions over the cost of health benefits to the SAU support staff.  While I objected to the 257% rise in cost to the taxpayer, the hue and cry was over "now setting policy" - a turf battle.  I consider anything with a dollar number attached to it as within the domain of the BudComm as long as RSAs are followed.

Yet, this was hammered as being divisive (there's that PC word again), setting policy, and creating a hostile or poor work environment.  Which would go against this Article if taken to the max.  Frankly, one anyone decided that the line was crossed, the attempts to squelch debate might start.

Now, the part of giving "appropriate direction"?  That is the domain, in day to day stuff, of the Selectmen and the School Board within their areas.  Other boards and commissions should stay out of the day to day stuff....

But what happens during conflicts?  If a board reports up through the Selectmen, the answer is clear.  If not, then what?

17. Implementation

As an expression of the standards of conduct for members expected by the Town, the Gilford Code of Ethics is intended to be self-enforcing. It therefore becomes most effective when members are thoroughly familiar with it and embrace its provisions.

When one disagrees with the wording, the vagueness, and the perhaps illegality of such a document, it is hard to "embrace its provisions".

And you look like a curmudgeon if you protest.

Now, to be fair, this is a draft, at least to Gilford (and in force, in Sunnyvale - sorry, I just think it is just too funny - cannot help myself....is this abusive or uncivil to keep pointing this out?).

For this reason, ethical standards shall be included in the regular orientations for candidates for all Town positions, applicants to boards, committees, and commissions, and newly elected and appointed officials.

 Here's a case of screen scraping can get one into trouble....I didn't know that we even had regular orientations for candidates and applicantes!  I only know of the "here's the paper, please fill it out" bit.  Is this something new, or (once again) did I not get the memo?

Members entering office shall sign a statement affirming they read and understood the Town of Gilford code of ethics. In addition, all Public Officials shall annually review the Code of Ethics, and the Board of Selectmen shall consider recommendations to update it as necessary.

18. Compliance and Enforcement

The Gilford Code of Ethics expresses standards of ethical conduct expected for all Public Officials.

The Selectmen and the Town Administration can expect anything they want - the real power, however, lies with the voters.  And I will pick on the example of Doug in this last election.  Other than Bill Philips (whom everyone one promoted), he came in with a large vote total that tells me that the issue of civility was a non-starter.  The voters said "nope, not a problem".

Members themselves have the primary responsibility to assure that ethical standards are understood and met, and that the public can continue to have full confidence in the integrity of government.

Agreed 

The chairs of boards and commissions have the additional responsibility to intervene when actions of members that appear to be in violation of the Code of Ethics are brought to their attention.

For those boards and commissions that are under the Selectmen, find and dandy.  For those that do not, a sense of decorum is already assumed, but cannot be mandated by the Selectmen.  Sure, there may be grumbling from time to time, but on the whole, there is no wholesale problems with the independent boards (BudComm and SB) that I am aware of.\

And if the respective chairs are not doing the right thing, then the Committee or Board should replace them. 

The Board of Selectmen may impose sanctions on members whose conduct does not comply with the Town's ethical standards, such as reprimand, formal censure, loss of seniority or committee assignment, or budget restriction. The Board of Selectmen also may remove members of boards, committees, and commissions as authorized.

And the Selectmen cannot.

In NH, Codes of Ethics are adopted by the legislative body, i.e., town meeting, by approving a warrant article.  This is what RSA31:39-a says:

CHAPTER 31
POWERS AND DUTIES OF TOWNS

Power to Make Bylaws

Section 31:39-a

    31:39-a Conflict of Interest Ordinances. – The legislative body of a town or city may adopt an ordinance defining and regulating conflicts of interest for local officers and employees, whether elected or appointed. Any such ordinance may include provisions requiring disclosure of financial interests for specified officers and employees, establishing incompatibility of office requirements stricter than those specified by state law or establishing conditions under which prohibited conflicts of interest shall require removal from office. Any such ordinance shall include provisions to exempt affected officers and employees who are in office or employed at the time the ordinance is adopted for a period not to exceed one year from the date of adoption. The superior court shall have jurisdiction over any removal proceedings instituted under an ordinance adopted under this section.

Source. 1981, 221:1, eff. Aug. 10, 1981.

A violation of this code of ethics shall not be considered a basis for challenging the validity of a board, committee, or commission decision.

Dandy

Now for the actual Oath that an elected / public official should sign.

As a member of a Gilford board, committee, or commission, I agree to uphold the Code of Ethics for Public Officials adopted by the Town and conduct myself by the following model of excellence. I will:

Recognize the worth of individual members and appreciate their individual talents, perspectives and contributions;

Help create an atmosphere of respect and civility where individual members, Town staff and the public are free to express their ideas and work to their full potential;

Conduct my personal and public affairs with honesty, integrity, fairness and respect for others;

Respect the dignity and privacy of individuals and organizations;

Keep the common good as my highest purpose and focus on achieving constructive solutions for the public benefit;

Avoid and discourage conduct which is divisive or harmful to the best interests of Sunnyvale;

If you are going to screen scrape, or copy from a boilerplate document, at least to a REPLACE ALL correctly?  Again, it goes back to the statement 'quite a while" when the T's and I's are left uncrossed or un-dotted..... 

Treat all people with whom I come in contact in the way I wish to be treated;

I affirm that I have read and understood the Town of Gilford Code of Ethics.

Signature Date

Name Office

Posted by Skip at 02:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I mean, really, how hard is it to see there’s a huge fiscal crisis upon you, yet not do anything to change the situation that led to the crisis in the first place?  Is it really that difficult to understand that the state’s long-term debt burden would be eased by switching to a defined-contribution plan?

.

What’s worse the legislature is also considering bills to “bail out” the pension fund. That means “raise taxes”. And doesn’t it occur to these morons that the system has to be “bailed out” because the state can’t afford the benefits?

Posted by Doug at 12:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

 32:15 Budget Committee Membership. –
    I. The budget committee shall consist of:
       (a) Three to 12 members-at-large, who may be either elected or appointed by the moderator, as the town or district adopting the provisions of this subdivision shall by vote determine, who shall serve staggered terms of 3 years; and
       (b) One member of the governing body of the municipality and, if the municipality is a town, one member of the school board of each school district wholly within the town and one member of each village district wholly within the town, all of whom shall be appointed by their respective boards to serve for a term of one year and until their successors are qualified. Each such member may be represented by an alternate member designated by the respective board, who shall, when sitting, have the same authority as the regular member.

Dormody referred to his opponent's last-minute appointment to the committee as a ploy in light of the election outcome.

.

"It would be interesting to see how other budget committees throughout the state handle their appointed positions," Dormody said to Hickok, adding, "the days of flying below the radar [with this district appointments] are over."

No, Dale, a real "ploy" is what you yourself have brought to the table- your "civility pledge", which was a ploy to distract voters from the real issues at hand, and away from the fact that YOU signed  a petition to eliminate the committee and that your spouse is on the town payroll.

Posted by Doug at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Dale Dormody 879

Terry Stewart 871

The Gunstock Acres Water District, per the Municipal Budget Act, gets to appoint a representative to the Budget Committee, which they have done. At a meeting of the Board, it was unanimously decided to

appoint Terry Stewart to the Budget Committee

And thus, Gilford embarks on a new year of politics, budgets, and excitement. All citizens of Gilford should be proud today, as the body politic is alive and well!

Let the games begin!

Posted by Doug at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jeff Madon decided to post a comment to Doug's posting (I think he meant mine).  While many blog authors will continue conversations within the comments section, I've decided to create a post instead.

I frequently keep up on your Grok postings, but have never posted a comment, up until now. Your postings are certainly good reading. 

Well, THANK YOU!  Believe it or not, we do appreciate anyone reading either of the 'Groks.  We especially appreciate it when someone disagrees with us!  A conversation showing different points of view can only make things, shall we say, lively! 

One can be both proactive, fiscally responsible, value Town employees, and do it all in a respectful way.  Overall mandate?  You guys love numbers, do the math: 

I'm not really sure what Jeff means by this, so I will do a rudimentary analysis on the BudComm results:

William Phillips        981      18.60%

Douglas Lambert     971      18.41%     

Terry Stewart           876      16.61%

Based on your split, the top three vote winners received 53.62% of the vote.  I will also point out that all three received the 'Grok endorsement.

With so many candidates in the race for Bud Com, you never mention the bottom 4.  Looks like a split vote to me: 

                    Dale Dormody         876        16.61%

                    Kevin Roy               841        15.95%

                    Delores Seager       381          7.22%

                    E. Scott Cracraft       197         3.74%

                    William Knightly       151         2.86%

Correct observation, but what does it prove other then the top three vote winners received more than the bottom five?  Split vote?  Only in that some won their seats and some did not.  According to your comment's arrangement, they lost. 

Note:  based on the "bag pull" Mr. Dormody won.  However, tomorrow's recount will tell who actually won the third seat.

The answer to your own "FUD" posting is yes - looming.  Looming, when admittedly flawed (but left uncorrected) salary studies, salary deceleration formulas and benefit contribution increases are in your crosshairs, and always will be.  If that's your solution to the apparent fiscal crisis Gilford is experiencing, so be it.  I just won't sit back and let it happen.  

Always be.  Here is the premise:

• 60% of both budgets are salaries and benefits.  To ignore the rise in this budget component would be fiscally imprudent.
  
• Budgets have been multiples of the inflation rate averaged over the last few years.
• Budgets are rising faster than wages in the private sector.

Do the math.

Flawed salary study?  The stats have been up for public review and correction for quite a number of months.  Only one person bothered to review them - and that person was not from the Fire Department.  If you look at the postings, where problems were found, corrections were issued.  

If you have better numbers from a public source that anyone can review, show them. NOTHING was hidden or secret - at any time any one could have brough alternatives. Certainly, you did not bother to provide such. 

As far as the finding fault with the report, I present the assumptions (once again) for the from the executive summary presented to the Budget Committee.  It was a targeted, narrowly focused study:

Purpose of the Report:

To examine the relative salary ranges of positions that are common to other Towns in the same population grouping (5,000 – 9,999) as Gilford to see if there are any disparities.

Overall Result:

Please see the Summary Table.

Data Sources:

State of New Hampshire Web Site (www.nh.gov)

New Hampshire Local Government Center (NH Municipal Association) (www.NHGLC.org)

Number of Towns in the survey: 32

Number of Positions compared: 39

Methodology:

Data was sourced from the State of NH as well as the NH Municipal Association

A series of charts were constructed for each relevant position, noting how many town had that given position (note: not all towns have all positions). Gilford's position in all charts is shown in bold lettering.

For each position, two charts were created:

• Town ranked in alphabetical order

• Town ranked by the maximum of each minimum / maximum pay range reported.

For the first chart of each position, the following was computed:

• The Number of towns having that position

• The Minimum amount for that position

• The Maximum amount for that position

• The Average values were computed using the total of the Maximums reported.

• The Median values were computed by using the total of the Maximum reports

The second chart took the data from the first chart and re-ranked the report from each town by Maximum value. Gilford's standing within that ranking was then computed (1 through N, where N was the number of towns reporting on that position). Further, the Maximal value of Gilford's salary range was compared to the Average and the Median computed in the first chart and a percentage above, equal to, or below the group results was computed.

In addition, other charts relating to land area, population density, valuations, and family income data are listed in order to provide a greater sense of context when comparing the towns.

Caveats:

• Please note that the Maximum value was used for each salary range as many Towns did not report minimums for many positions.

• Please also note that Fire Department positions reported here must be reviewed carefully due to the myriad of ways that personnel can be compensated (volunteer, call, part time, full time) by type as well as pay type (hourly, salary, per call, lump sum).

• All salary ranges, for comparison purposes, have been converted to yearly dollar amounts wherever possible. Some positions from some towns (i.e., fire departments) were dropped from this study as it was not clear how compensation actually worked.

No need to post my comment on your site, just thought I'd pass it along in case you missed it. Thank you.

To not post it would not be right 

Posted by Skip at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, Alec ruminated on if the voters issued a “clear message” last week. While the question of “what has Gilford decided to be” were answered in some areas, he was “baffled” with what he thought was the defining race. I am perplexed that his belief that a tie for the third open seat defines his consternation.

How to categorize the voting? With a checklist total of around 6,000 registered voters, only about 2,000 actually cast their votes. Should a 33% turnout be considered “bad”? Or given that it was only a local election, could it be considered reasonable? Regardless, the Town can only benefit when more people come out to fulfill their civic duty and vote.

Let's review the major “race”. Much of the campaign rhetoric did not center around the proposed Town and SAU budgets (what was deleted, what was added) but the “tone and civility” (or lack thereof) claims wrapping around those budgets. With a more conservative bent of the BudComm, many cheered and many wailed over the decisions made.

And Mr. Lambert put himself square in the middle of it. Unabashedly conservative, given to spouting political theory from the likes of Machiavelli to the Founding Fathers (among others) and not one to remain silent on pretty much any topic, he earned the ire of those opposing his views. All one would have to do to verify this is to review how often Mr. Lambert was mentioned in the local papers over the last budget season. Thus, a number stepped into the fray, smelling either political opportunity or altruistically seeing a chance “to make things better”.

This is where I disagree with Alec's assessment of the race and who were the main competitors in the race. Into the fray came Mr. Dormody who made “tone and civility” the issue of the campaign and the basis of the election and essentially against Mr. Lambert.

As Alec correctly points out name recognition would play a major role. Supporters on both sides wrote Letters to the Editor to all of the local papers, partisans on both sides talked to persuade the undecided, and calls were made to get out their vote. Also, for the first time in Gilford's history, much campaigning was conducted on the 'Net with GilfordBudget going head to head with GilfordGrok. A good thing, as it can readily make the opposing political views an active event for all – educating the electorate and quickening the pace of ideas than what is possible with the traditional media. While Alec correctly points out that the 'Grok and the Taxpayers Coalition endorsed for Lambert and Stewart, I discount the 'Grok a bit in this as the 'Grok is only two schlubs (albeit, outspoken) and only one possessing a history in local politics. Match that up, for instance, against the Firefighters who are always involved in local elections) and the ads for Mr. Dormody.

Agree: the surprise of the race was the tie between Sirs Dormody and Stewart. Disagree: this was not the defining event. For much of the campaign, it was not Stewart / Dormody; rather, it was Lambert / Dormody. The answer could, however, be seen as something else entirely than the personalities.

Take the results in toto – would it be wrong to say that voters have turned conservative in fiscal issues and those that do not listen will pay a price? Putting aside Mr. Phillips (as ALL sides approved his candidacy), the second highest vote getter was a conservative. The third highest vote getter was a conservative no matter which person wins Thursday's recount as both Sirs Stewart and Dormody announced that stance.

After all, did anyone successfully run by stressing that the Town or SAU should be spending more?

The voters also rejected the SAU's budget for the second time in three years,. While the controversial issue of Gilford Football certainly had an impact, money cannot be disregarded. Now couple this the defeat of their generalized Building and Grounds Warrant.

Now add Saltmarsh. While I believe that this issue became “collateral damage”, it's failure to pass also adds up to one thing being said by the voters in Town – it didn't matter the “value” if it would also amount to higher taxes. At about $4,300 per person, the combined Town and SAU budgets have folks finally saying “enough, do not cross this line”, that the balance between private, public, and retired sectors needs to be brought back into balance.

Oh, back to the tie. When it was announced, there was a collective “huh?” from those waiting on the election results. A fluke? Certainly, but should be taken more as in the realm of oddity than a message on the state of the voters mind.

Posted by Skip at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

After election ruminations?  Sure!  Writing about other things, having lots to do and little time in which to do them (e.g., the old 8 lbs of stuff to fit into a 6 lb bag)......time to play catch up.....

FUD - Fear.  Uncertainty.  Doubt 

Fire departments all over are known to not sit on the sidelines during political elections.  As individuals and as organizations, they have their right to enter the public square and throw their arguments into the fray.  Here in Gilford, they certainly made their intentions known as they backed Mr. Dormody, Mr. Phillips, and Mr. Roy (Scott Mooney, Sun, 3/12).

One thing in Mr. Mooney's letter was a plea for

"to conduct themselves in a professional and civil manner when involved town business"

Well, is it fair to demand that some adhere to that standard, but not one of your own?  Jeff Madon's Letter (Sun-3/12, Citizen-3/10) caught my eye due to it's content:

"Of course we are disturbed about the looming salary and benefit cuts, but public safety of the residents and visitors of Gilford has always been, and will always be our primary concern.  We challenge those that are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning..."

Civility can be judged on a number of different levels.  The words that construct the above certainly seem civil enough.  However, syntax is not a sufficient judge of civility, one must take the semantics of that snippet of his letter into account as well:

"Of course we are disturbed about the looming salary and benefit cuts, but public safety of the residents and visitors of Gilford has always been, and will always be our primary concern.  We challenge those that are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning..."

Now, I'll just be blunt - where did "looming salary and benefits cuts" come from?  "Looming" gives a reader an impression of immediate and large, something to be afraid of.   Yet, at no time did anyone on the Budget Committee ever say it was prudent to do so. And putting it that way, in that manner, makes it seem as if looming salary and benefit cuts are actually all but a done deal. During campaigning, some pushing of the boundaries of the issues is almost expected, but is attempting to "make points" that way acting exactly what was being attacked?  Isn't the underlying meaning ("they are going to cut employees!"), written to deliberately mislead voters (for I can think of no other reason) uncivil? 

I also noticed the attempt to "raise" the worth of the writer by promoting the idea that "our primary concern" is only altruistic; the juxtaposition of that while presenting "are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning" in an attempt to use an untruth to better one's position, uncivil?

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

Posted by Doug at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

...is a privilege, not a right.  But it seems, as with many things nowadays, everything is a right.  And many privileges seemingly are being turned into rights, whether the item deserves to be or not.  And this local item of discussion, seems to be heading right into that arena.

Gail Morrison, D-Sanbornton, has introduced HB878 that will elevate the frequency of testing for seniors that still retain their licenses and cars.  And already the howls have started!  Recriminations of discrimination abound.  The main clause that is causing such a kerfuffle is "Because age frequently brings on medical changes or illnesses such as diabetes, strok or other debilitating conditions, this bill includes accelerated testing, once every two years beginning at age 70 and once a year beginning at age 75."

Oh my, let's just discriminate natural outcomes!  Ours is a rural area, no doubt about it.  And without a car, without a costly mass transit system in the area, it is hard to get around, no doubt about it.

I've read the Letters in the papers, and the opponents of this law seem to stress two things:

• What about MY independence?
• What about the "other" groups that are at risk?

For the latter argument, my question is "why are you trying to debate like my kids did when they were little?"  Almost always, when caught in unproductive behavior, the words hitting my ears were "well, what about <insert name here>, s/he was doing <insert bad activity name here>" as if that was all that was necessary to absolve them of what they had done (or wanted to do).

In this style of argument, consider:

• What about others with debilitating diseases like the elderly?
• Those taking prescribed medications that can degrade driving skills?
• Drunken drivers
• Out of control teens
• Speeders
  
• Any discrimination is wrong
  

Brenda Baer mentions getting more physically fit to improve 'driving flexibility'.  That's fine as far as it goes, but that isn't the main reason for seniors being bad drivers.  Cognitive and perceptual degradation are the problems that make elderly drivers problematic.  If an elderly person cannot correctly judge speed and distance differentials (current thinking is that the brain cannot process motion quickly enough, so the brain "sees" motion as a series of stop motion slides rather than smooth transitions, and the spacing between the slides increases - yielding more danger for others).

And while her statement that "most senior citizens are well aware of their shortcomings and their impairments and adjust accordingly." seems fine on the surface, there are a few problems with it.  Frankly, if only "most" do so, what about the rest?  As the number of elderly continues to rise as the Boomers retire, even 10% becomes a large number when you start talking those older drivers that value their independence over anything else.

And don't forget the threats if this goes forward:

• Bill Whalen (I suggest you withdraw your support of this proposed house bill which discriminates against all seniors if you hope to get the senior vote at election time) 
• Brenda Baer (Remember seniors, we are the biggest voting bloc in the State and we do go to the polls in larger numbers than any other. 

Isn't this discriminating against the rest of us who expect safe roads by depending on legally sanctioned drivers to share those roads with? 

Let's go back to the first argument - my question to those that have written into the local papers, is independence a right? In order to get a license, minimum requirements have to be met.  A seeing test and a driving test.  Loss of independence is not part of the equation. 

Every action, or decision, has consequences.  Knowing that the time may come soon to give up a license and living in a rural area where comprehensive mass transit  would be cost prohibitive (and thus, not available) is a conscious decision.  As opposed to giving up a license when living in an urban environment where there is mass transit, doing so here and not taking constructive steps to mitigate the loss of self-transportation will result in the loss of independence.

Look, driving is a privilege.  Most seniors (but not all) experience degradation to their cognitive skills, and often rapidly as aging sets in.  No, I'm not talking about dementia - this is about reaction times and the ability to correctly perceive differential high speed motion scenarios.  Sure, experience helps, but only so far. The problem at hand is that many seniors will wait too long to give up what should have been done already. 

Want an anecdote?  For a few years before my Mom went to live out West near my brother, I had decided not to allow my family to ride with her anymore when she drove.  In fact, part of the reason why she moved is that she would not admit that she could no longer adequately perceive apparent speed differences when pulling onto the highway (or even Gilford Ave).  Even when I told her that it was "time", she would not give up her license. And she knew that if it came to it and I requested testing, the State was not going to allow her to drive.

Thankfully, once out West and not knowing the area, she relented and finally gave up her license.  

But not until. 

Posted by Skip at 08:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every year, scams are becoming increasingly complex as con artists discover new, sophisticated ways to fleece the public. Unfortunately, even the well-known deceptions still fool victims. Whether new or old, con artists prey upon the same vulnerabilities in our human nature. We can better protect ourselves by first knowing what kind of fraudulent operations exist and how they function.

Posted by Doug at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Selectman

Budget Committee

Fire Engineer

School Board

Posted by Doug at 05:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

                                        Mr. Phil Arel:   "The Budget Committee is out of touch!"

                                        Mr. Paul Blandford:   "You sold those people short"

                                        Mr. Buckman: "The Budget Committee has shown contempt

                                                        for the voters"

                                        Civility needs to be restored - the voters demand it.

                                    Doug Lambert reelected (issues over style)

                                    A great showing for newcomer Terry Stewart!

                                    Congratulations to Bill and Gus!
 

                                    The School Board budget defeated (as recommended by the

                                                    Budget Committee)

                                    The School Board Warrant Article for maintenance defeated 

                                                   (as recommended by the Budget Committee)

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! 

Posted by Skip at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I sit here in limbo regarding the pending outcome of the tied Gilford budget committee seat, I have a few thoughts to share.

.
This is another prime example that every vote counts. For those of you that sat this one out because you thought your vote didn’t count: Your missing vote would have made a big difference for 876 voters, a town clerk and two candidates!

.
I would like to thank all of the great people that I met at the polls and especially those that supported me in so many ways. It is a foregone conclusion that the outcome of this tie is irrelevant to the message delivered by the voters of Gilford.

.

The voters didn’t buy into that “negative tone” scheme and supported Doug Lambert’s position on the budget. It should be obvious that the ongoing attempt to alter the 50 year operating procedures of the budget committee was rejected as well. It’s obvious that the voters have no interest in the proposed “Best Practices” scheme as well and it too should be shelved. There is no question that the support of the Tax Payer coalition played a key role in Doug’s victory and I am also very appreciative of the Tax Payer coalition’s endorsement. As a new comer to Gilford politics, I went into this first bid for office knowing that my roll was mostly introductory and winning would have been a nice bonus. The voters simply piled on by casting 876 votes against a long time resident whose wife is the Library director and had the support of the FF’s. It would be safe to assume that he and Kevin Roy also had the support of the library supporters and the entire town employee base, including the school district. Dale Dormody and Kevin Roy’s Candidacy was an all out blitz from the special interest groups to support their spending and to oust Doug Lambert.

.

I would hope that even they have a Grasp for the obvious and see that the voters overwhelmingly rejected that concept, regardless of this tie breaking outcome.

.
Congratulations to the voters of Gilford, Doug Lambert and the Tax Payer Coalition.
I can’t thank you all enough!

.
Terry Stewart

Posted by Doug at 05:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Please vote for me, Doug Lambert, for a seat on the Budget Committee on March 13th.

Posted by Doug at 05:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In response to the scurrilious letters in the Daily Sun, Mr. Stewart has nicely requested that the 'Grok post this on his behalf! 

I am reading the Daily Sun this morning in complete shock. There are a couple of "personal attacks" against me from the very people that are claiming to be so civil. Besides that, they aren't true. Where exactly did I say that Salaries would be cut?
Where exactly was I uncivil to any town employee. What "large monetary donators" were attacked?

I believe I was quite candid about ignoring the "Code of Conduct" because it was not specific and would be a meaningless gesture.