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.
I certainly didn't sign it because I refused to be civil. That is completely ridiculous. At least I'm reality based and the obvious fabrications from these fire fighters are a desperate plea to get a town employee insider elected. I'm not sure why they are fabricating these stories but they should be ashamed of themselves!I have done nothing to them to warrant such baseless and uncivil attacks. 

Sincerely,

Terry Stewart

Posted by Skip at 01:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

"looming salary and benefit cuts."

"those that are intent on slashing budgets and demeaning experienced fire department staff."

Posted by Doug at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The following is the salary listing for the SAU as of the date received (1/07).  There are approx. 260 employees in the SAU - the rest of the positions are listed after the jump.  All are listed in terms of highest to lowest salary - thus, the Total Cost may differ for the rankings.  Please remember that Total Cost is all other costs borne by the taxpayers for a given position (medical/dental insurance, retirement pay, taxes, et al).

In context, the median income for 4 person family unit in Gilford is about $48K. 

Posted by Skip at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Coerced Charity

Charity is defined as an individual voluntarily giving of themselves to help the less fortunate. Sometimes the gift is given and sometimes requested. However, the operative word is “voluntarily”.

There has been a change for charities from looking to the public for support to one of depending on governmental funding to carry out their missions. Each year, Non-Governmental Organizations (“NGOs”) ask Gilford for "donations" for their "good works” for Gilford residents; this year over $100,00 in taxpayer monies. When $14,000 was removed for the Red Cross, Genesis Behavioral Health, and New Beginnings (still leaving $86,000 for other NGOs), howling ensued.

Funding goes out and comes back – has for years. Why? Someone always puts the funding back in the budget believing that “for the common good” is always a sufficient reason for using taxpayer monies. Question: is it right or wrong to compel taxpayers to coercively donate to a charity via taxes to organizations that they may not otherwise wish to? Should property taxes better be used only on direct town services?

The cost of government always rises, often well above the rate of wage or price inflation. It is exacerbated when someone demands more spending just because they feel that people do not give enough, especially to the charity of their choice.

I have no problems with fee-for-service NGOs being funded with taxpayer funds arranged in advance. Example? The Humane Society – Gilford has outsourced its animal control needs to them. But according to the definition, even though the Humane Society is a charity in other respects, it is a vendor in this manner.

As it was, the NGO funding was put back in by Alida Millham's motion and a majority of the roughly 300 voters present at the Deliberative Session.  She obviously believes that all citizens should be forced to donate to the charity of her choice: "The attitude should not be to let someone else do it" (Citizen). 

In other words, it is wrong not to help. Yet...

Question: what do you call a politician that does not forthrightly tell those from whom she is trying to extract their tax monies that she is a member of that same charity (Genesis Behavioral Health Advisory Committee)?

Yes, she can belong to any organization and advocate for what she wishes. But wouldn't the right thing have been to announce that connection?. Or recuse herself?

But then she goes and does it again and reveals a larger problem. The Gilford argument (“Genesis serviced X number of residents”) was also used at the County level. So now it seems, they get to include Gilford residents in the count of assisted County residents – a double dip!

Not content with Gilford's “donation” and a County increase to $27K (10%), she advocated a further increase to $34.2K (31.5%). This advocacy publicly revealed that Genesis has been violating a 10 year agreement with Belknap County to not ask Towns for funding. Her defense? “Millham said she has been familiar with Genesis since its inception and expressed confidence that the organization was asking for an amount that would cover its costs.” (Citizen).

Further, Genesis is now playing hardball and stating that if they don't get the full amount that of $34K, they will shut off services in August. Right! A multi-million dollar operation will shut its doors because our elected leaders decided to only give them a 10% higher "donation" than last year?

Question: what do you call a charity that does its work and THEN demands donations?

Question: what do you call a charity that doesn't reveal that it also receives County, State, and Federal funding – perhaps re-using the same statistics over and over again? QUAD-dipping?

Question: what do you call a charity that sidesteps a 10 year old agreement with the County to not request monies from Towns?

Question: what do you call a politician that, when caught at abetting this practice, says that it would be a “disfavor to say it is duping taxpayers and noted that some expenses...may not be covered otherwise” (Citizen)?

In my opinion, this pulling of the heart strings (“the poor will not be helped”) to make one feel bad and open up someone else's wallets, is not a good way to advocate for additional giving. No one forces Genesis to do what it does – why use a form of emotional blackmail to coerce forced charity? Why not appeal directly to the public for these funds?

Charity begins and ends with voluntary giving - not demands to government. If the services are truly that important, people will contribute.

Charities used to be thankful for donations....is this a turning point?

Posted by Skip at 11:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Study. Call. Demand Question. Vote.

Next week is the final step of the SB2 process – the March 13^th vote. For many, this is the culmination of hours spent in preparing, defending and examining budgets, and crafting Warrant Articles. However, others are just ramping up their activities for their issues or as candidates for the Town's elected offices in marshaling their supporters, ordering and setting up signs, and getting their messages out both in real world and in cyberspace.

And there are a lot of positions to fill. It is surprising how many in Town volunteer their time and effort to make Gilford a better place to live. In all, there are over seventy elected positions on the various boards with nineteen slots open for this year's elections: Selectman, Treasurer, Welfare Director, Trustee of Trust Funds, Trustee of Public Library (2), Budget Committee (3), Board of Fire Engineers, Conservation Committee (3), Planning Board, Recreation Commission (2), Zoning Board of Adjustment (2), and the Historic District / Heritage Commission. No matter their reasons, political leanings, philosophical outlooks of the people who give of their time, they should be thanked.

When March 13^th arrives, responses will differ. For some, it's a yawner, just another day with no differences between it and any other. For others, it is the day to vote, but done with a sense of civic duty driving them rather than any particular interest in issues or people. However, for the town activists that enjoy local politics and process, this is the highlight of the year. Regardless, politics is the way that things get decided or done when groups of people have to figure out amongst themselves how they will live with each other and agree to be governed. March 13^th is a major closure point for a year.

However...

 ...it is incumbent upon the voters to know for what and for whom they are voting. Do you know what the issues are, and what the candidates are saying how they will meet these challenges? Are you an informed voter (or care to be)? After all, it was a relatively small number of folks that showed up for the two Deliberative sessions compared to the number of registered voters. According to the most recent checklist, there are 6,015 registered Gilford voters. If 300 voters showed up for each session (reasonable estimates and many attendees attended both meetings), that means that only 5% of the Town voters spoke about and made important decisions on what the other 95% will vote on. This is something that the advocates for getting rid of SB2 point to in denigrating the SB2 process....the “uninformed” voter. That said, however, paper ballot voting has resulted in a larger number of voters – better overall representation. And, to be a totally informed voter, one would have to attend every meeting of every board to fulfill this requirement.

However, residents now have many more media outlets than in years past to go to that list, print, or discuss the issues so as to become that educated voter. Use them. Find out what the real issues are as opposed to campaign / perceived ones. Become knowledgeable about what the Town will be facing over the next few years. Study candidate stances that have been reported in the print or radio media or on websites / blogs and see if they match up to the Town's needs on spending and issues. Call them if there are none, call them and ask. Demand that the candidates tell you how they stand. Question their answers if seemingly evasive, both to further understand how they will vote on the issues and to make sure they answer the questions truthfully, honestly, and fully to your satisfaction (even at this level, it is still called politics). Vote for the person and issues that best fits your outlook on the direction that Gilford should be taking in the next few years.

Examples: increasing healthcare costs, a new roof for the Elementary School, a new Fire Engine this year and another soon, renegotiating the teachers contract, a new Police Station, and now plans for the development of the Meadows. Millions of dollars that could be spent by a town of only 7,400. At a rounded $32 million ($10M Town, $22M School) the proposed Budgets will cost $4,325 / person in town just this year. Ask yourself: enough, not enough, or too much?

Where do the candidates stand? What are their philosophies with respect to taxes and government - smaller, stable, or growing? How do the Warrants stand in relationship to your idea of what Gilford should be?

Where do you stand on the candidates and the issues? Find out. You get to decide on March 13. For Gilford.

Posted by Skip at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Although Mr. Dormody has told the Budget Committee members how he wants them to act and how the Budget Committee should conduct its business, he has yet to inform us as to the real important stuff - how he would vote on the important fiscal issues that face the Town?

Mr. Dormody has done well in picking on what Doug and Terry have said on the record but carefully not revealing his stances on the various issues fiscal issues facing the town.  I thought that perhaps he finally decided to let the electorate what they were  voting for other then a "civil" person when I saw that he was answering questions....

...er, not so much.   From his site:

Gilford Resident Questions:

• Town employee contributions to there ever increasing health care cost.
• Do you consider wages in Gilford to be above average? If so, will you work to keep raises in line with private sector raises? Many people I know receive 0 - 3% annually, plus have their health contributions raised frequently.
• Should the Budget Committee be involved with teacher contracts? The previous three year contract of an annual 8% wage increase, along with an above average increase in the current contract, could definitely use some oversight.
• Should the Budget Committee be looking at the retirement fund contributions of town employees? This is a state, and country, wide issue that is going to start costing taxpayers huge money. I would appreciate these issues, along with your responses, being posted on your web site for other candidates to give their much needed input.

My Response:

Now, to your first question regarding town employee contributions to ever-increasing health costs. Like any private business, it is reasonable for the town to expect employees to share in the burden of rising health care costs. Having said that, like any private business, the town owes a duty to their employees to make decisions about such contribution levels based on a thorough and professsional salary / benefit analysis that takes their complete compensation package into account. If we can't get such a study in-house, then we should pay to have one completed. More on this in the next question.

First thing that hits me is the part that does not surprise me - coming from a multi-billion dollar company like UAL, first answer is to pay for the study.  Of course, in that environment, there are lots of underlings to do the research. And generally there is money for outside consultants (although UAL spent quite a long time in bankruptcy due to costs outstripping revenues) to do such studies. 

Also, I consider this a well crafted answer, because if one reads and rereads it, he seems to nod a yes to employees sharing in the healthcare burdens, but then spends quite a bit of time softening that stance.  To be honest, it is not clear what his stance is on this subject.

Do I consider wages in Gilford to be above average?

I don't know.

The competitive labor market is one factor that goes into the bottom line salary received. Other factors - to name just a few - include the total compensation / benefit package, union constraints, and the qualifications / education level that the town associates with each position. Salary and benefits are the single most expensive line item in hundreds of thousands of businesses (and towns) across the country. It's a fact - but this fact does not independently signal that salaries or benefits at an individual company (or town) are too high. We should be demanding adequate explanations, support, and comparative analyses from town and school administrators, selectmen and school board members. If we're not satisfied with what they give us, then we should request a professionally authored, comprehensive analysis to tell us one way or the other.

"I don't know."  Given that it became one of the most discussed items in Town, and he wants to be on the BudComm,  he has not attempted any effort to find out for himself?  Or, attempt to refute the numbers that have been publicly available for quite some number of months? 

Lots of good sounding words, certainly sounds reasonable.  However, another ducking of the issue.  And with the answer amounting to "I'll let other people do the work or pay for it", I see that as an easy way out.  He expanded the issue into total compensation and did not answer a direct question.  Another non-answer. 

Neither taxpayers nor employees should be expected to rely on a narrowly-focused, single-number comparision completed by someone with no expertise in salary / benefits / compensation - and inserted into the debate by the town's most policitically polarized committee.

So, "I don't know", but let me throw water on an real attempt to answer that question in order to change the focus from him to something else.

Once again, a reminder - it was a narrowly focused study - by request and by design, limited by time and resources.  The question posed by the Chair of the BudComm was to compare salaries.  Not total compensation, not health benefits, not dental benefits, not retirement benefits, not vacation benefits, not long or short term benefits.  Just salaries.  That's all that it was supposed to be.  And that's all it was. 

No, I do not have any large company expertise...other than what a small business owner has picked up on the job.  After all, as UAL (his former company) found out, when costs outstrip revenues, bad things happen.

BTW, notice that his words attack me and attack the focus of the study.  Notice, too, that he does not attack the veracity of the data.   The data is publicly displayed on this site and obtained from public sites.  So, let's attack the presenter, the focus of the study instead of what the data says.

Should the budget committee be involved with teacher contracts?

No.

The town pays darn good money for professional administrators, and we go to the polls to elect a representative school board. This is their job that we've hired and elected them to do, and we should hold them accountable to do it. If I hire an attorney to represent me in court, and I'm dissatisfied with his performance, what would be my best course of action? Find another attorney, or call up my plumber and ask him to argue my case? I don't know about you, but I'd go with the first option.

His analogy with the lawyer and the plumber don't hold water - those are private sector positions and Mr. Dormody has the full right to hire and fire anyone he wishes. 

In the part of the public sector, Mr. Dormody forgets that the mission of the Budget Committee is to evaluate, on behalf of the taxpayers by RSA, the budgets of BOTH the Town and the School Board.  Why does his answer vary from the Town vs the SB?  Both have professional management and both have elected representatives for oversight.  Why one and not the other, Mr. Dormody?

Again, the mission of the BudComm is oversight over BOTH!  A number of times this season I've heard that mantra - let the SB do what it is elected to do.  For a person that wishes a seat on the BudComm, why does he wish to abdicate the responsibility it is chartered to maintain and to which he would be elected?  Sure, the SB is elected, but so is the BudComm. 
 

Should the budget committee be looking at retirement fund contributions of town employees? This falls in line with your first two questions. This has a growing impact on the costs in town, so as with salary and benefits, the budget committee has a duty and a right to demand that the town's solution be fully supported and explained. If the committee isn't satisfied with the support or explanations, they should request a professional review.

Again, Mr. Dormody quickly goes to the paid consultant route - why not dig in, learn, and save the town a few bucks?  Why does he have this mind set that any review needs to be done by professionals only?  He makes a point to show in his background that he is a smart guy - and there are other smart folks in Gilford too - why not take advantage of them?

Let me also add that while the BudComm has jurisdiction over all fiscal matters in Gilford (like the School Board), there is nothing the BudComm can do in this area and Mr. Dormody should know that (he attended the meetings).  Right now, this is a State issue, and the RSAs state that if the public sector retirement funds do not meet their investment thresholds, they can legally raise the amounts that the towns pay (thus taxes) into the system. 

The BudComm can do nothing in this area.  However, it is a good thing that Evans Juris has spoken up and is trying to get those that pay the bill a seat at the retirement 'table".

Posted by Skip at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

First he wanted to get rid of the Budget Committee.  Now he's running for it.  Now he's made it known how it wants it run!

OK, I go a bit far (maybe).  Mr. Dormody has written a letter outlining how he wants to see the BudComm operate next year. So as a blogger does, it's time to comment on it.  And no, I do not disagree with ALL of it!

This is long.  But I have a question for Mr. Dormody - at the end.

To: Richard Hickok, Budget Committee Chair
       Connie Grant, Selectman
       Allie Boucher, Selectman
       Dennis Doten, Selectman
       Evans Juris, Town Administrator

Like it or not, the Board of Selctmen nor the Town Administrator have authority over the BudComm.  But certainly nice to keep them in the loop during this campaign cycle. They may, however, be willing to purchase the software that would be necessary to implement his ideas.

Re: Gilford Budget Committee

As you know, I am a candidate for an open position on the Gilford Budget Committee.

 And the more the merrier!  If not else, it certainly provides more opportunities for discussion and for the public at large to see what the issues are.

I attended many of the committee meetings this year, including both public hearings and one subcommittee working session.   It is my belief that the budget committee - and the taxpayers they serve - would greatly benefit from the discussion and adoption of a series of "best practices".

I believe that anyone not on the BudComm, is not officially associated with the process themselves, should be congratulated no matter the stances on the issues. 

Best practices would be nice.  However, often this requires resources, funding or time, that a small town and it s volunteers do not have where a large private sector company would. 

I am submitting the following list of suggested best practices as a starting point for the discussion, and I would ask that they be considered during the upcoming season - whether or not I am an official member of the committee.

1. Provide training for new and existing budget committee members. I understand that some formal training is (or was) offered through the State. If this program has value, attendance should be mandatory for all committee members. If not, an alternate training session should be developed. The public deserves to have new (and existing) members who have gained a basic understanding of the committee's role, the budget process it follows, and its overall mission.

And what official or board has the authority to take action if a member decides not to attend?  As far as I know, there is nothing in the RSA speaking about the removal of a BudComm member except for violating the unexcused absense threshold.  And what about those members that have to travel for business on short notice?  Do they get penalized for not attending it?

And setting up the alternative training session only doubles the problem.

     2.   Develop baseline standards / guidelines for the budget review
           process. As I understand it, there is no standardized approach
           for subcommittees as they go about their work of reviewing
           the budgets of individual departments. As a result, some
           subcomittees may delve deeply into the smallest budgetary
           details, while others conduct a considerably less intensive
           review. For consistency, and to assist department heads
           with their preparations, some baseline standards and
           guidelines would be beneficial.

            3.    The committee should take full advantage of e-mail and the internet to
                   increase public awareness of and involvement in their proceedings.
                   Suggested solutions include the following

Two parts here.

First, is using the technology between the BudComm members. Here's a big problem....Mr. Dormody is showing an unfamiliarity with the RSAs that govern how elected officials are allowed to communicate inbetween meetings.  One of real issues, spread all over the local papers, is RSA 91 and the ability / inability / use / non-use of emails effectively going around mandatory meetings.  Once cannot conduct the business of boards and committees via email.  Plain and simple if it concerns items that are for a quorumed meeting.

Even though he has attended many of the meetings, he failed in one very important observation: not all of the BudComm members use the Internet, much less email.  Other than polite chiding / joking once in a while, it has been made clear that they will not do so either.

Thus, without the full and willing participation (and unlike the private sector, this cannot be mandated) it won't work.  And yes, I tried, softly. 

And when it comes down to it, these are not items that the Budget Committee can just go out and buy for itself.  The mission is to review budgets only. 

• provide taxpayers with the ability to "opt-in" to learn about budget committee issues and schedules. Using technology well-established in the business world, residents can quickly and securely sign up to receive targeted information about upcoming committee hearing schedules and votes - delivered via e-mail. Residents could choose their area of interest, and be automatically notified of relevant committee actions.

Second - the schedule part is easy - it already exists!  Emails are sent out to those that register at the Town web site for meeting notifications - check it out.  And they are posted in the real world too.  The agendas work now. 

It is not clear that the Town's web site host can do targeted agendas, or do this any time soon.  In any case, this is beyond the scope of the Budget Committee to provide this functionality.  And there is no capability to provide it.

On a more postive note, in discussions with Evans Juris, it is clear that he would love to have more capability in the Web site.

• More official information about the budget committee proceedings should be available online - including voting records for each member, summaries of department budgets and committee recommendations, and a balanced presentation of any issues that are disputed. Meeting minutes are not enough - as they are lengthy and unfocused. The information presented online should be officially sanctioned by the budget committee and presented on the town website, or an alternate website created for this express purpose.

With the BudComm already approving its minutes, so I'm not sure what Mr. Dormody is looking for?  The only addition would be to have them posted which some older ones are, but not the most recent.  The BudComm has no access to the web site (that I am aware of) to post its own minutes anyways.

Voting records are not a bad thing.  The last BudComm meeting posted (first of this year's BudComm season) has a voting record in it.  The "major" voting records are also recorded by the media.

The budget is available, but the Budget Committee is not responsible for the keeping of it...this would be a Town function (most likely, the Finance Department).  This would entail more work by the Finance Department and putting it up on the Town web site.

Minutes - it seems that Mr. Dormody is unhappy with Sandy's work - the Selectmen Executive Secretary, as well as the gentleman that the School Board brought for their meetings.  The BudComm has no resources to take notes.  Is Mr. Dormody offering to pay for a professional transcriptionist? Or is he willing to take on this function himself?  After all, isn't that the New England way - see a need and fill it?

I find it a bit strange as well, that Mr. Dormody is looking to have voting records tabulized, yet during this campaign he has all but refused to make his views known.  Yes for me but not for thee?

4.    The budget committee should double the number of public sessions. The
       committee currently holds the minimum number of public hearings
       allowed by law - one for the school budget, and one for the town budget.
       These sessions are held late in the season after much of the committee's
       work has been completed and minds are made up. Holding at least
       one additional public session for each budget earlier on in the season
        would allow members to receive public feedback earlier in their
        decision-making process.

It is the mission of the Budget Committee, by statute, to present their reviews of the budgets and the changes that it has made.   No matter what Mr. Dormody's observation, the process of completing that mission takes time, a lot of time.

Also, consider this.  All of the meetings are open to the public.  Every one, including the subcommittee meetings are open for any one to attend.  Heck, he even invited himself into a meeting that I had set up with Chief Hayes (along with a couple of the Board of Fire Engineers, the Deputy Chief, and I think a couple of the firemen).  Many members provide their email addresses already and most are accessible by phone.

There is no shortage of ways that a taxpayer can make their voice heard concerning the BudComm. There are no secrets!

In fact, I am hoping that the CCTV / Public Access system will be up and running this year - and then everyone can watch every BudComm meeting from the comfort of their home.  I even hope that someone records it so that it can go up on the internet for later viewing.

Also, might I point out.  There are about 6,000 registered voters in Town.  Each of the Deliberative sessions, in round numbers, were only about 300 (more or less).  That translates to a mere 5% and most of those folks only had certain agenda items in mind (IMHO).  

I have nothing against it - have it - I just don't think that having more will result in a higher turnout.

I appreciate your consideration.

Posted by Skip at 06:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Citizen yesterday had a story on local funding of Genesis yesterday in the paper, where County officials accused it of breaking a 10 year old agreement that if it accepted County funding, it would not ask for Town funding. I posted about it on GraniteGrok this morning.

This morning,  I see that Genesis is whining - or should I be using a stronger word?  It seems that if they don't get the $6.700 that was cut, they will have to cut services in August. Sure, a multimillion dollar operation will have to shut its door because our elected leaders decided to only give them a 10% higher "donation" than last year? 

Since when does an NGO DEMAND tax dollars?  For that is effectively what they are doing - fork it over or we shut the doors!  Certainly, they do not seem to be content with what is being given to them.

What would you say if someone came to your door, asked for a donation, accepted a $20 bill, and then looked up at you and said "That's not enough - I want more!"  Is that right?

This is an organization that says it is a charity....but from the Citizen articles, it is acting as if it is "owed" that money for work that it does on its own even though no one has said that they had to.  If they decide to give services to people, that is their decision and not one that should automatically make them deserving of more.

Taxpayer money should never be seen as an entitlement.

They do bill people for services...and the Feds, and the State.  "Donations" come from the County and the local Towns, and from individuals.  It is their decision, as a charity, to assist those that they cannot bill.  Just like the rest of us, they will learn to live within their means.  Doing good works is not a sufficiently good reason to expect that taxpayers are required to fund all their activities.

If the services are so important, the right kinds of people should be willing to stand up and write a check.  If not, do not provide those services.  Private fund raising for charities is as it should be.  Not via coerced tax dollars.

Charities used to be thankful for donations....is this a turning point? 

Posted by Skip at 08:13 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, it is that time....the time that the 'Grok endorses candidates for the Budget Committee.  With no surprise, Doug Lambert is one of those candidates. I also urge you to vote for Terry Stewart.

Below is the Letter that was sent into the Sun and the Citizen: 

The Budget Committee is elected to provide oversight of the Gilford's fiscal affairs and to make sure that hard earned taxpayer taxes are used wisely. Members need to be able ask the hard questions and say what many would leave unspoken to ensure the process works correctly.

It takes people who are hard working, committed and smart; people who are not swayed from core principles. People who have the wisdom to say “yes” at the right time, and even more importantly, the ability to say “no” when needed.

There are three positions available on the Budget Committee. Your vote is extremely valuable this year, as it will help determine the governing philosophy of the Committee in the coming year: Will it be one that watches over taxpayer dollars carefully and wisely? Or one where desired "quality of life" issues require ever increasing governmental services that continue growing everyone's taxes? That no price is too high?

In a year where upcoming projects totaling millions will be coming to the fore, your choices will be critical.

I endorse, therefore, Doug Lambert for one of these slots. He has proven himself over the last 10 years in being always true to his principles and willing to invest his time on various committees making Gilford a better place. This year on the Budget Committee, he has asked the tough questions and made sure each dollar is watched carefully. Re-elected, he will continue to fight for the common taxpayer. I ask that you cast your vote for him.

I also endorse Terry Stewart, and ask that you vote for him as well. A life long resident of the Lakes Region, he has attend many of the Budget Committee meetings, learned the process, the issues, and the players. He has also made his views known publicly via Letters To The Editor. Once again, his fiscally conservative outlook will ensure that your taxes will not just be spent, but spent well. He will see to it that needs (versus all the wants) are met.

Plain spoken, unafraid to take on challenges, principled. They are your right choices for the Gilford Budget Committee. Vote NO on Warrant Article #29.

I also urge you to re-elect Bill Philips.  While we don't always see eye to eye on issues, he is a good and honest man who certainly has defendable positions on views.  He has been, and will continue to be, an asset to the Budget Committee and should be returned to it.

We will be commenting on other positions and Articles fairly soon. 

Posted by Skip at 07:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the same way that Doug and I have been taking it on the chin from those that oppose our philosophy and seek to muddy the waters by bringing up "tone and civility", fellow blogger Jim Dannis of Milford is facing the same thing.

One large difference - in Gilford, the local press (the Citizen,  the Sun, and the Gilford Steamer) have pretty much played it straight - factual and pretty much down the middle.  And for that, we give them a big "THANKS".

Not so much for the local paper in Milford.  Read Jim's blog entry here as to why.  Then read the editorial.

In his case, the ability to reach the population of Milford directly is changing the tone and focus of the issues facing the town - swinging it from a town orientation to a taxpayer orientation.  The entrenched establishment is working as hard as they can to fight this philosphical move brought forward by Jim.  As he points out (emphasis mine):

While I’m flattered by the attention, it’s important to understand what is really going on.

The Milford media market is becoming a mini-version of what we see on a national level. It’s all about issues and issues advocacy.

There’s a constant battle between two sharply opposing belief sets about town government.

On the one side, the two selectmen with blogs see town government as working for taxpayers.

Government should provide good customer service. Government should be affordable. Government should be open and accountable. Every citizen should be treated fairly and equally. Government employees should be incentivized with rewards for good performance and accountability for poor performance. Selectmen should work hard and be knowledgeable about the town’s finances, budgets and practices so they can provide meaningful oversight of town government on behalf of taxpayers.

On the other side, there are those who believe just the opposite -- that taxpayers work for town government.

They strive to keep town government happy and well-fed, regardless of taxpayer cost. They don’t want open government and accountability because it will show up the sharp differences in expectations and results between the private sector and the public sector. They don’t want performance pay or similar incentives for employees because this may make some employees unhappy. As advocates for town government rather than taxpayers, there is no need to understand finance, budgets or operations. The “good enough for government work” standard is all that’s needed.

These are huge, fundamental differences in beliefs and approach.

The local paper is an open, unabashed advocate for town government, not taxpayers. Their agenda is to advance that position in any way possible. Page one of the playbook is attack the message; page two is attack the messenger. It’s all part of the game.

Sounds familiar, in a little bit of a different guise, doesn't it?  Here, we hear about "tone and civility".  We hear that we are destroying the town.  We hear that people are tired of seeing Gilford in the news.  They are tired of the discord.

In short, sweep any disagreements under the rug (with the rest of the "dirty laundry").  After all, we are GILFORD!  We don't do that here!

Just like, as Phyllis Corrigan so correctly pointed out at one of the BudComm, how Gilford's different special interest groups will marshal themselves to fight to have taxpayers pay for football, but no such hue and cry was heard or seen over the reports of alcohol or drug abuse and other "bad" behaviors. Why?

I think that it might be fairly simple - one is "good" and one is "bad".  It is easy to be part of the good.  It is harder to be working on the other. 

Yet, in asking the questions and doing research into town expenses, and the resulting public scrutiny of the facts and the process, public interest is up - always a good thing.  I expect, as a result,  that the voting on March 13 will be rather high.  And for each of those that decry the negatives, we do hear from those that say "Atta boys!".  Thus, this election may be quite surprising in its results.

We will learn, at least in terms of the BudComm elections, if tone and civility will win out over addressing the issues.  The voters will certainly let us know which camp is correct.

This upcoming election for the BudComm here in Gilford is of the same aspect as the Selectman races are in Milford (and other towns in NH as well) - what is the governing philosophy going to be?  Is it going to be a conservative or liberal one?  Will it be one that watches and spends taxpayer hard earned dollars carefully and wisely?  Or one where what is important is the services that the town provides, the "quality of life" issues at any cost?  That no price is too high?

The truth is that there are far more good ideas that could be implemented than there are dollars to support them.  There needs to be a separation of needs vs wants (and I believe that process is in place) - the arguing is over what is a "need" and what is a "want", and what are the resulting priorities thereof.

The fact is that taxes are rising at a much higher rate than either the consumer or wage inflation rates.  Thus, another consideration will be "is it fair to taxpayers that their taxes go up far faster than their wages?  Is it fair that taxpayers pay for increases in salaries and benefits than what they themselves see all in the effort to  'retain good employees'?"

In essense, where do the voters come down on the issue of fairness - where is that dividing line that marks "fair"?  The slowing down of the rate of increasing taxes in favor of taxpayers or increasing the rate of spending by the Town for payroll and services?

Also, the next few upcoming years in Gilford will show that there are far more pressing and more important issues than what are being discussed.

Once again, I point out, that the real issue about the BudComm is being clouded - it is not civility, it is philosophical.  Since Mr. Dormody has been at the forefront of effort to do away with the BudComm, and that effort has seemingly been altered irretrivebly (i.e., the removal of the fake BudComm of Warrant Article  - VOTE NO!), he has altered his tactics. 

Yet, has he enumerated his stances on these large upcoming expenses?  It isn't as if he is not aware of them - to his credit, he did attend many of the BudComm meetings as well as many of the subcommittee meetings (even birddogging my Friday afternoon meeting with Chief Hayes a while ago). 

Yet, he remains strangely silent on these issues.  Why?  Unlike, Doug and I who have had no problems in telling people where we stand, his lips are sealed.  Why won't he inform the general electorate of his stances?  My musings are that while Doug and Terry (and I) have no problem in standing behind what has been written and said, if his hard and fast stances were known, it would make for an easier decision for voters on March 13th.

[update: since first keyboarding the above, he has updated his site.  I will comment on the new additions Real Soon Now]. 

No, that would not help his campaign if people knew, so it seems he wishes to change the campaign debate strictly on a personal level vesus a discussion on the fiscal issues facing the town.  By making it on style and painting the conservatives running for the BudComm as loud mouth louts, only concerned with their own agenda, he attempts to get elected without the electorate know how he will vote.

The "Toxic Selectman"?   Really, it seems to stand for one who goes against the grain to advocate for the taxpayers......and if that is a "personal agenda", it's not a bad one to have.

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

No, I don't have the background to  get in on the inside of some of the global warming models myself (anymore).  However, I did start making the switch from biology to computer science in doing some (rather) crude computer models way back when.

In contemplating your vote on Warrant Article #21, consider the claims made by those touting the results of the various global warming climate models:

From the American Thinker, a chemical engineer speaks to the difficulties of modeling small tightly controlled environments and applying the lessons learned to that for the largest system in the world:

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory

 Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere. These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers.  The mathematics of global warming should not be compared with the explicit calculus used, for example, by Edmund Halley to calculate the orbit of his eponymous comet and predict its return 76 years later.

 

Although based on scientific "first principles", complex numerical models inevitably require simplifications, judgment calls, and correction factors.  These subjective measures may be entirely acceptable so long as the model matches the available data -- acceptable because the model is not intended to be internally consistent with all the laws of physics and chemistry, but rather to serve as an expedient means to anticipate behavior of the system in the future. However, problems can arise when R&D funding mechanisms inevitably "reward" exaggerated and alarming claims for the accuracy and implications of these models. 

Many other scientific fields besides climatology use similar models, based on the same or related laws of nature, to explain and predict what will happen in other complex systems.  Most famously, the US Department of Energy's nuclear labs use supercomputer simulations to help design atomic weapons. Most of this work is secret but we know, of course, that the models are "checked" occasionally with underground test explosions. The experimental method is an essential tool

A much better analogue to climate science is found in the semiconductor industry. Integrated circuits and many other building blocks of modern electronics are manufactured by creating artificial atmospheres or "climates" within which chemical vapor deposition (CVD) forms nanometer-scale thin solid films on silicon wafer surfaces. In CVD, metal vapor precursors entrained in carrier gases are used to deposit metal films on surfaces in a condensation process not unlike formation of dew or frost on a lawn.  In such CVD processes, premature formation of metal particles is unwanted and needs to be controlled and prevented; such particle formation is akin to precipitation of rain drops in the atmosphere

The semiconductor process industry uses numerical models to predict the behavior of gases and vapors in order to deposit these substances on substrates, and thereby manufacture integrated circuits. I am not a climatologist or meteorologist but I have studied fluid mechanics and gasdynamics and have a general understanding of computer models used in process engineering.  Such models are used to analyze industrial processes with which I am familiar.  Indeed the mathematics for such models is generalized.  And industry's experience with numerical process models sheds light on their strengths and limitations.

Andrew Grove PhD is a giant in the history of semiconductors. A founder of Intel, Grove famously presided as CEO over its enormous growth during the 1980s and 1990s. Few realize that his academic training is as a Chemical Engineer, not an Electrical Engineer.  Chemical Engineering is at the heart of what Intel and other semiconductor manufacturers accomplish. 

Process Models: Vapor deposition

Let's consider how these process engineering mathematical models are actually used in industry.  Intel and its competitors (as well as their key suppliers) employ many chemical engineers who are familiar with such process models, some of whom specialize solely in mathematical modeling.   Often a new technical challenge will emerge in which a process must be changed (such as for scale-up to accommodate larger silicon wafers) or adjusted to accommodate a new material composition. 

Almost all semiconductor manufacturing processes occur in closed vessels.  This permits the engineers to precisely control the input chemicals (gases) and the pressure, temperature, etc. with high degree of precision and reliability.  Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already).  Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.

The fact that these artificial "climates" are closed systems far simpler than the global climate, have the advantage of the experimental method, and are subject to precise controls, and yet are frequently wrong, should lend some humility to those who make grand predictions about the future of the earth's atmosphere.

So serious are the problems, sometimes, that it is not unheard of for an experimental reactor to be scrapped entirely in favor of starting from scratch in designing the process and equipment. Often a design adjustment predicted to improve performance actually does the opposite.  This does not mean that process models are useless, for they undergird the engineer's understanding of what is happening in the process and help him or her make adjustments to fix the problem.  But it means that they cannot be relied upon by themselves to predict results. These new adjustments and related information are then used to improve the models for future use in a step by step process tested time and again against experimental reality. 

In actuality, the semiconductor industry is well familiar with the limits of process modeling and would never make a decision to purchase equipment or adjust their manufacturing processes based on predictions derived from models alone.  They would rightly expect extensive experimental data to support such a decision in order to assure the ability to reliably and economically manufacture high quality materials and devices. 

Climate Models

As with all fluid mechanics models, the flow field of a climate model (i.e. the entire atmosphere) is divided into three-dimensional grids of small volume elements designated by latitude, longitude and altitude. Each volume element of the grid is then characterized with parameters such as pressure, temperature, wind velocity, etc., and equations that relate these factors.  Air and energy that leave one volume element enters the adjacent one.  When summed across all volume elements, the model keeps track of the flows of air and energy in the entire atmosphere.  Many factors must be accounted (see below).  Boundary conditions must be set: in this case, the boundary of the atmosphere is land or ocean surface on the bottom, and some boundary in space on the top; these yield rules (e.g. air cannot flow into the surface of the earth).  Then, Initial Conditions must be set: this means that the grid's equations are "populated" with the known values of the parameters characterizing the atmosphere such as pressure, temperature, and humidity profiles measured today. 

Finally, the computer calculation can commence:  A unit of time (a second, minute, day) is assumed to pass and the computer calculates the next "state" of the model based on the initial conditions, the boundary conditions and the other equations of the model.  This process is repeated again and again, with the new state being the initial condition for calculating the subsequent state, until e.g. 100 years has passed.

Errors can accumulate rapidly.  Let's list some of the factors that must be included (by no means an exhaustive list):

Solar flux
Gravity, Pressure
Temperature
Density
Humidity
Earth's rotation
Surface temperature
Currents in the Ocean (e.g., Gulf Stream)
Greenhouse gases
CO2 dissolved in the oceans
Polar ice caps
Infrared radiation
Cosmic rays (ionizing radiation)
Earth's magnetic field
Evaporation
Precipitation
Cloud formation
Reflection from clouds
Reflection from snow
Volcanoes
Soot formation
Trace compounds

And many, many others

Even if mathematics could be developed to accurately model each of these factors, the combined model would be infinitely complex requiring some simplifications.  Simplifications in turn amount to judgment calls by the modeler.  Can we ignore the effects of trace compounds?  Well, we were told that trace amounts of chlorofluoro compounds had profound effects on the ozone layer, necessitating the banning of their use in refrigerators and as aerosol spray propellants.  Can we ignore cosmic rays?  Well, they cause ions (electrically charged molecules) which affect the ozone layer and also catalyze formation of rain-drops and soot particles. 

As with all models, it is perilous to ignore factors in the absence of complete experimental data which might have otherwise have significant effect.

Perhaps most critically, the role of precipitation in climate seems to be understated in the numerical global climate models. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist at the Global Hydrology and Climate Center of the National Space Science and Technology Center in Huntsville, AL, writes that the role of precipitation is not fully accounted for in global warming models. In my view, that's like an economist admitting his theory of the money supply doesn't fully account for the role of the Federal Reserve.

Unless we know how the greenhouse-limiting properties of precipitation systems change with warming, we don't know how much of our current warmth is due to mankind, and we can't estimate how much future warming there will be, either. To solve the global-warming puzzle, we first need to learn much more about the precipitation-system puzzle.

What little evidence we now have suggests that precipitation systems act as a natural thermostat to reduce warming.

Approximating the experimental method

While mankind cannot experiment on the global climate, these models can be used retroactively to see how well they "model" the past.  The UN's 2001 Climate Change report distorted the historical record by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period in the famous "Hockey Stick Curve" which, by many accounts, unreasonably accentuated temperature rise in the 20^th century.  Such distortion of the historical data undercuts the credibility of the models themselves, since this is the only "experimental data" available for testing the fidelity of the models to the actual climate.

Why on earth would climate scientists "massage the data" to produce doomsday predictions? The answer requires looking at the rewards available to these researchers.

Catastrophe and careers

Vannevar Bush's seminal 1944 policy paper unleashed the Federal government's unprecedented post-war investment in R&D in the hard sciences and engineering. Science was seen as the way to avoid (or at least win) another catastrophic war. 

The golden era of federal funding resulted in unprecedented employment opportunities for hard science Ph.D.s.  Fresh graduates could easily find tenure track employment at universities expanding their hard sciences program. The enormous dividends from this investment make up our modern technological world.  However, the munificence of the federal funding caused a certain, shall we say, insouciance about resources: "Why use lead when gold will do?" became an informal motto at Lawrence Livermore National Lab.

Inevitably, the growth in congressional funding tapered off and in the late 1980s the competition for R&D sponsorship began to tighten.  Fresh Ph.D.s often had to look to the private sector for employment (heaven forefend!).  Grant writers were required to start highlighting the potential "practical payoffs" of their proposed work.  Since there was little need for better atomic weapons in the post-cold war era, High Energy Physics lost its central status in the funding universe.  Many mathematical physicists became refugees to allied fields (some of them even became "quants" on Wall Street). But others found employment elsewhere, including in climate science.

In this competitive environment, one can imagine climate modelers justifying their work by citing the possibility of global change, the further study of which requires, of course, "more research".  One can further imagine that in the inchoate communication between university researcher, funding agency, congressional staffer and congressmen that "possibility" eventually became "probability" and then "probability" morphed into "certainty" of global warming, especially if there was potential for political advantage. 

This has resulted in an inadvertent funding-feedback mechanism that now resonates in largely unjustified alarm and also seeks to quash scientific dissidents who indirectly threaten to throttle the funding spigots.

The practical experience of numerical modeling in allied fields such as semiconductor process modeling should cause us to question the claimed accuracy for Global Climate Models.  The UN's distortion of historical climate data should further undermine our faith in climate models because such models can only be "tested" against accurate historical data. 

In my view, we should adopt the private sector's practice of placing extremely limited reliance on numerical models for major investment decisions in the absence of confirming test data, that is, climate data which can be easily collected just by waiting. 

Jerome Schmitt is president of NanoEngineering Corporation, and has worked in the process equipment and instrument engineering industries for nearly 25 years.

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

No, not here in Gilford.  But they are getting the heat on them down in Florida?   Is it because the citizenry is upset because local government is not spending enough on certain things?

Nope. 

Is the citizenry up in arms, feeling that costs and taxes are too high? Well, yes, but that's not the reason either.

Nope.

Clue - if Warrant Article #29 had not been modified at the Deliberative session, and had passed at the upcoming March 13th vote, this might have happened!

Palm Beach County commissioners reject demands to rein in their spending

Turning back a wave of residents clamoring for slimmed-down county spending, Palm Beach County commissioners Tuesday rejected a recommendation that they hold the line on the budget and slammed their own advisory committee for making the suggestion

There are those in Gilford (Mr. Arel, Mr. Dormody [who was against it before now running for it] among others),  that wanted to have a Budget Committee that was going to be strictly advisory.  By disbanding the current BudComm, they would have settled for one that would have been appointed by the Selectmen as opposed to be elected by the voters. 

Thus, it would have seemed to be a BudComm, but with no real power to actually do something. 

Essentially, as the rest of this story unfolds - it would have been toothless (just like this story's one).  And subject to the whim of those that did the appointing - the Commissioners that pawned off their elected responsibility to manage on behalf of their constituents to a handpicked Budget Committe that then advocated for overall cuts.

Watch what happens when the BudComm doesn't "get it" and says the "right thing". 

Residents told commissioners that because county spending has spiraled in recent years, property taxes are forcing people from their homes and stifling the real estate market.

Commissioners were defensive, quarreling with speakers and blaming state legislators for passing down unfunded mandates. Commissioners unloaded on the Budget Advisory Committee chaired by Commissioner Warren Newell, threatening to replace board members they appointed just months ago unless the committee changes its focus.

Sure, appoint them, and when they do not provide the "cover" they wanted, threaten to sack them.

And ignore them. Or keep on berating them.

Of the 16 percent increase in county property taxes this year, resident Virginia Brooks said: "That's nearly triple the combination of population growth and inflation, and almost double the growth in personal income. I think the solution might be, just like any good household would do, a belt tightening."

Commissioners rejected the budget committee's recommendation to keep 2008 spending to this year's $4.3 billion level.

The commission formed the advisory committee less than three months ago in response to a growing outcry over increases in county spending. On Tuesday, commissioners said the committee should focus on specific programs and county expenses, rather than making broad suggestions. Commissioners each appointed one person to the seven-member budget committee, save for Newell.

"Just telling us, `Go cut,' I think we need to be more specific," Commissioner Karen Marcus said. "If they don't want to do that, we need to put new members on there."

But maybe that's what should be done - instead of cutting a small number of projects, by level funding the budget, it would give time for incomes to catch up.  Maybe, that's what the Commissioners should have done on their own, standing up to their own responsibility.  Instead, they're making sport of the folks that they set up on this mission.

Commission Chairman Addie Greene took it a step further.

"Why do we need this committee?" she asked. "It's my personal opinion it's a waste of time."

They didn't need it.  But once appointed, should they be pot-shotting it?  No, but they it seems that they are ignoring its recommendations.

About a dozen residents spoke on the spending issue, all hammering home the same theme: County spending is out of control, leading to crippling property tax bills for anyone without a longtime homestead exemption.

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

Article 21 on the ballot concerns itself with Global Warming.  With Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" (trying to persuade us that we have an immediate crisis and HAVE to change our ways) winning an Oscar, and then the inconvenient truth about his personal lifestyle being made public (e.g., using 220,000 kilowatt hours per year, versus about 10,000 for the typical family), there are a lot of people and scientific facts that are now throwing water on the idea of a consensus having been formed.

It seems that a consensus that man is causing that is only a consensus of those that believe it.  And not all scientists believe it.  Let's start with this:

As NewsBusters previously reported, there is a climate change skeptics conference going on in Canberra, Australia. One of the function’s organizers is the influential Lavoisier Group whose co-founder Ray Evans has written a fascinating publication on this subject that the media and global warming alarmists would hate for Americans to read.

Simply called “Nine Facts About Climate Change,” this piece carefully outlined the major issues concerning the anthropogenic global warming debate while countering claims by the alarmists including former Vice President Al Gore.

Evans wonderfully categorized the problem at hand in his introduction (emphasis mine throughout):

In January 2006 I wrote a pamphlet entitled Nine Lies about Global Warming in which I sought to summarise for the lay reader the state of the debate about increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, and the widespread predictions of catastrophic global warming which would ensue as a consequence of man’s use of fossil fuels. Despite the inherent scientific implausibility of these predictions, and the complete lack of empirical evidence to support them, a number of current political leaders and former leaders, notably UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, former US Vice President Al Gore and Australian Labor Leader Kim Beazley, have embraced these predictions. The Environmentalist movement throughout the West has united behind global warming as its primary campaign ambition, and the political power of the Environmentalist movement has generated very large expenditures as a consequence.

 Evans’ introduction continued:

The science debate is at the heart of the global warming campaign. On one side of that debate we have those prominent scientists who preach the gospel of anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide-generated global warming. Without exception, their careers have been made in the shadowy world where science and politics intersect; a world described by the once celebrated but now forgotten novelist of the 1950s, CP Snow. Lord May and Sir David King in the UK, and James Hansen in the US, are outstanding examples of the genre. On the other side of the debate is a long and growing list of scientists whose careers have been built on successful research into the extraordinarily complex physics and chemistry of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans, and the influence which the Sun has on the earth’s climate. The most recent example of devastating critique of the anthropogenist carbon dioxide school comes from William Gray, the doyen of American hurricane scientists.

After his introduction, Evans elaborated on the following nine facts:

1. Climate change is a constant. The Vostok Ice Cores show five brief interglacial periods from 415,000 years ago to the present. The Greenland Ice Cores reveal a Minoan Warm Period 1450–1300 BC, a Roman Warm Period 250–0 BC, the Mediaeval Warm Period 800–1100AD, the Little Ice Age and the late 20th CenturyWarm Period 1900–2010 AD.

2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for all life on earth and increasing atmospheric concentrations are beneficial to plant growth, particularly in arid conditions. Because the radiation properties of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are already saturated, increasing atmospheric concentrations beyond current levels will have no discernible effect on global temperatures.

3. The twentieth century was almost as warm as the centuries of the Mediaeval Warm Period, an era of great achievement in European civilisation. The recent warm period, 1976–2000, appears to have come to an end and astro-physicists who study sunspot behaviour predict that the next 25–50 years could be a cool period similar to the Dalton Minimum of the 1790s-1820s.

4. The evidence linking anthropogenic (man-made) carbon dioxide emissions and current warming is limited to a correlation which holds only for the period 1976 to 2000. Attempts to construct an holistic theory in which atmospheric carbon dioxide controls the radiation balance of the earth, and thus determines average global temperatures, have failed.

5. The anthropogenists claim that the overwhelming majority of scientists are agreed on the anthropogenic carbon dioxide theory of climate control; that the science is settled and the debate is over; and that scientific sceptics are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries and their arguments are thus fatally compromised. These claims are an expression of hope, not of reality.

6. Anthropogenists such as former US Vice President Al Gore blame anthropogenic emissions of CO2 for high temperatures, droughts, melting polar ice caps, rising sea levels and retreating glaciers, and a decline in the polar bear population. They also blame anthropogenic CO2 for blizzards, unseasonable snow, freezing weather generally and for hurricanes, cyclones and other extreme weather events. There is no evidence at all to justify these assertions.

7. Increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide will have negligible impact on the earth’s radiation balance and will promote plant growth everywhere. There is no need to sequester CO2 in the ground or to subsidise nuclear or other non-carbon based methods of energy production.

8. ‘Tropical’ diseases such as malaria and dengue fever are not related to temperature but to poverty, lack of sanitation and the absence of mosquito control practices.

9. The decarbonisation of the world’s economy would, if attempted, cause huge economic dislocation. Any democratic government which seriously sought to fulfil decarbonisation commitments would lose office. Shutting down coal-fired power stations and replacing them with renewable energy sources such as windmills or solar panels will cause unemployment and economic deprivation.

Those that are interested in the details should read the entire piece.

Posted by Skip at 08:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)