Links


Town of Gilford Offices

 Gilford Main Page
Office of Selectmen
Town Administration - John E. Markland
Town Clerk-Tax Collector - Denise Morrissette
Appraisal Dept. - Marsha McGinley
Finance Dept - Geoff Ruggles
Fire Dept. - Jim Hayes
Gilford Library-Katherine Dormoday
Planning Dept.-John Ayer
Police Dept. - John E. Markland
Public Works - Sheldon Morgan
Parks and Recreation - Herbert Greene

Board and Committees

 Selectmen - Connie Grant, Gus Benevides, Kevin Hayes
Budget Committee
Board of Fire Engineers
Library Trustees
Planning Board
Zoning Board of Adjustment

Meeting Calendar

Gilford Schools

 SAU #73 Gilford
SAU #73 Mission and Beliefs
Elementary School
Middle School
High School
NHAEP-NH

State of NH

 State of NH Official Web Site
State of NH Laws (RSAs)

Executive Counselor

 Ray Burton (R)

State Senator

 Kathleen Sgambati(D)

State Representatives

 Click here for more State Rep info

(R) Allen, Janet F
(R) Boyce, Laurie J
(R) Clark, Charles L
(R) Flanders, Donald H
(R) Heald, Bruce D
(R) Millham, Alida I
(R) Nedeau, Stephen H
(R) Pilliod, James P
(R) Russell, David H
(R) Thomas, John H
(R) Tilton, Franklin T
(R) Tobin, William B
(R) Wendelboe, Fran

(D) Aresenault, Beth
(D) Morrison, Gail C
(D) Reever, Judith
(D) Wood, Jane

Local News

The Citizen (Lakes Region)
The Concord Monitor
The Gilford Steamer
The Laconia Daily Sun
The Union Leader
The Weirs Times

Local Commentary

 GraniteGrok
Weekend Pundit
One Voice In Gilford
NH Insider

« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »

January 31, 2008

Kevin Hayes versus the Budget Committee?

Budget Committee
Budcom reviewing the budget-- the job they're elected to do.
.
I am somewhat perplexed by the comments by Kevin Hayes regarding his run for Selectman as published in today's Laconia Daily Sun.
"I have no agenda," Hayes declared. 
.
However, he suggested that "it appears that decisions are not being made and when they are, it is with a look over the shoulder to the Budget Committtee.
.
"The Budget Committee doesn't run the town," he said.
Allow me to translate Mr. Hayes' words for the layperson:

The Selectmen, in Mr. Hayes' opinion, have spent too much time actually worrying about the impact of their decisions on the taxpayers instead of just getting on with the business of increasing both taxes and spending.

Somebody ought to remind Mr. Hayes about the results of last year's election-- you know, where the budget committee was overwhelmingly supported by the voters who were asked to disband the important monetary oversight group. Also, ahem, a certain conservative and supposed bad guy garnered the second highest number of votes and was elected to a three year term on that same committee. Couple this with the lack of any real controversy with the performance of this year's Budget Committee, and one has to wonder at the rationale of Kevin Hayes running against its record.

Could it simply be that he's still sore because that body didn't pick him to fill an open seat when he applied two years ago?

.

Posted by Doug at 09:55 AM | | Comments (0)

January 28, 2008

NYC - measuring teachers (just like the rest of us)

From the NY Post:

Grading Teachers
Kids' test scores must count

January 28, 2008 -- IF you want good teachers in the schools, the first step is obvious: Figure out who they are.
And not by relying solely on water-cooler chat and subjective judgments but by also looking at rock-hard data on teacher performance.
Such common-sense thinking has led Chancellor Joel Klein & Co. to undertake a pilot project to measure and track teachers' results - based on their students' test scores.
The idea is revolutionary for city schools, but even baby steps in this direction could do a world of good for kids.
Imagine teachers treated like other professionals - having their performance monitored and quantified. In other fields, workers are routinely judged against numerical indicators.

Sales folks get measured:

  • Future leads and pipeline sales
  • Orders booked
  • Repeat and new sales
  • Services vs Product vs Warranties 

As a software engineer, I do very unique things most days.  Each project is pretty much different - often radically different than anything else I've ever done.  Yet, even within that variability, I've been measured (lines of code / function points, bugs, tech writing, seminars, consulting dollars, customer satisfaction, assisting sales / number of accounts won). 

If you are going to manage something, you gotta measure it.  That's one reason why I kept bringing up one simple measure during the SAU budget meetings - what's your ratio of indirect / direct cost? 

I ran into the expected obfuscation of "well, we do it this way, they do it another way, and somebody does it a third.  So, how can you measure us?"  As Terry Stewart pointed out, that's a simple org chart that almost all businesses have ready all the time.

We're still waiting to receive it. 

Gee, I thought it would have been rather simple for the SAU / School Board to come up with the simple ratio that I was asking for

Still have not received that either.  So much for measurements....

Numbers, after all, don't lie. The Giants should beware of Patriot QB Tom Brady in Sunday's Super Bowl because his lifetime win-loss record is 100-26 and he's thrown 222 touchdowns. Salesmen, entertainers, doctors and lawyers are often weighed against statistical standards.
Shouldn't educators be judged similarly? Absolutely. If their students do well, teachers should get credit. If not, teachers should share blame.
Given how vital the good ones are and dangerous the bad ones, it's insane that they're not already tracked this way. Most folks agree that:
* Education is vital.
* Teacher quality makes a key difference.
* Some teachers are shining lights while others are god-awful lousy.
Parents have long understood the importance of good teachers; every summer, they beg, steal or borrow to see that little Johnny escapes Ms. Jones or gets into Mr. Smith's class come fall.
Yet rookie teachers, good and bad alike, get lifetime tenure almost automatically after just three years of service in New York. By definition, some kids are being short-changed.
Let's be clear: The problem has never been how to sort the wheat from the chaff but, rather, how to get the teachers' union to allow merit-based distinctions.
In theory, sophisticated stats shouldn't really be necessary. A good principal knows from long-term observation which teachers are the crème de la crème and which are hopeless. They should be able to make staffing changes accordingly.
Alas, the union - and the teachers' contract - makes that nearly impossible. 

Posted by Skip at 08:24 PM | | Comments (0)

RI Teacher Union Leader shoot self in foot

Our friends over at AnkleBitingPundits had this news / commentary snippet:

If you want a perfect example of the “gimme” mentality of teacher’s unions and just how out of touch their leaders are with the real world, look no further than this article.  As you may recall a few months ago we wrote about how Rhode Island teacher’s unions couldn’t face the reality that they were getting gold plated retirement benefits.  Now a new study came out showing how each retiree could get as much as $1.1 million over the course of their retirement, and how good they have it.

Well, now a study has come out showing that the state is $4.9 billion in the hole for these costs and are looking to try and solve this seemingly insurmountable problem. And how does Robert Walsh, the head of the Rhode Island NEA respond? Well, just read.

But Walsh rejects the argument advanced by Governor Carcieri that the state needs to bring its employee benefits — including pensions — “back in line” with what private-sector workers get.

On the retirement front, Walsh said: “All you have to do is look at what happened to the market in the last three weeks to understand why private accounts and 401(k)s don’t offer nearly the security of a defined benefit plan,” he said. Estimating that one out of five private-sector workers in Rhode Island still has a defined benefit plan — with guaranteed income no matter what happens on the stock market — Walsh said of the other 80 percent with no such guarantees: “We are never going to compete with folks, with employers who are so ridiculous they do not provide retirement security plans for their employees.

“If they don’t, they are terrible people and they shouldn’t be allowed to exist and that’s always going to be the union position on those issues,” he said.

You got that? According to Mr. Walsh’s typical union thug mentality, unless a company promises retirement benefits to workers that bankrupt the company, they are “terrible” and “shouldn’t be allowed to exist”.

Basically he’s talking about 90% of the companies out there that have to survive financially in the real world that know such a system is unsustainable.  But Mr. Walsh and his ilk have been sucking off the public teat for so long they are utterly blind to reality and doesn’t care one damn bit about the taxpayers that pay the lion share of these costs.

And somebody ought to ask this financially ignorant fool that what the hell does he care what happens to the stock market?  It doesn’t matter to him because the taxpayers just pay more for his and his union’s guaranteed income - in addition to having to save for their own retirement.  Unlike his lucky ass, nobody bails them out.  But that’s the liberal and union mindset - everybody needs to be bailed out by the taxpayer.

And while he’s bashing the market why doesn’t he take one minute to think that it’s because of the market, and the contributions of the taxpayers that he’s able to have his gold-plated benefits.  His union members can retire at 55 and collect about $38,000/year (plus a guaranteed 3% yearly increase) for the rest of their lives.

He actually thinks it’s in his benefit that Rhode Island teachers contribute a whopping 8.75% of their pay toward their pension costs. Big damn deal. The state - meaning the taxpayers - kick in about 21% of total payroll. In the real world companies match contributions up to about 6%.  Rhode Island teachers get about have their contributions nearly triple matched.

Somebody might want to tell Mr. Walsh to shut the hell up and take a look at the real world. And please don’t say I’m bashing public school teachers here. My dad is a retired public school teacher, I’ve got 4 aunts and uncles who are retired public school teachers, and my brother and wife are currently teaching in the public schools.

It’s the gimme mentality of these union leaders that gets me irritated. And yes, if the teachers blindly follow the garbage spewed out by these leaders then they too are just as guilty as being financially blind and ignorant, not to mention greedy.

After all, it's always "for the children", isn't it?  With individual teachers, more than likely.  I think Bull Dog got up a head full of steam, however, when looking not at teachers but at unions.  Face it, unions exist for the betterment of their members just as companies should be enriching their owners - that's what they both do. And power dictates who gets the better of the deal in many cases.

Posted by Skip at 08:13 PM | | Comments (0)

Spreading the news - webwise!

THIS is very good news indeed!

Article Date: Sunday, January 27, 2008

GILFORD — Soon, residents may be able to watch selectmen's meetings from their personal computers.

Town Administrator Evans Juris informed the Board of Selectmen that over the next few weeks the town will be looking into some relatively inexpensive Web hosting services to support streaming digital videos of meetings.

In 2007, the town began recording the selectmen's meetings for broadcast on Lakes Region Public Access. With the recorded meeting already in hand, the town will be exploring the possibility of transferring the video online.

Juris said if this was to happen, residents would be able to access meeting videos through a link on the town website.

I have had a number of chats with Evans in the past and wholeheartedly agree with this decision.  He deserves kudos for getting the recording project in the Conference room up and running and working with the Public Access folks for trial runs (still in process from what I understand).  However, even if recordings are on cable, one still has to know WHEN it will be broadcast.

Putting them out on the 'Net is far better from a time perspective - done properly, anyone with a browser can watch it at any convenient time to them (and not to Public Access).  While having a fast connection will most likely be needed for decent viewing, I think it is worth the effort.

After all, we do it! 

 

Posted by Skip at 08:05 PM | | Comments (0)

Library Warrant Article safe to Fly?

The voters of Gilford should know the whole story of how the Budget Committee came to reverse its decision on the Library warrant article. Committee member Dale Dormody described an analogy of how important the committee’s recommendation is to the voting public. He tells the story of an airplane mechanic applying a big sticker on the door of the plane that reads “UNSAFE To FLY”. Dale then asks “would you get on the plane?” This excellent comparison suggests that the committee has combed over the budget information thoroughly enough to know whether or not we should be spending the specified money. Let’s continue the analogy to describe what happens in Gilford when the "mechanics" deem the plane unsafe to fly. After the mechanic has applied his warning sticker he then gets lectured and brow beat by the group that is causing the unsafe flying condition. They manage to corner the mechanic during a vulnerable moment when he doesn’t have all his faculties. The mechanic is forced to remove the warning sticker from the plane even though the plane is still UNSAFE To FLY!

 

This was the case with the library warrant article giving the library $110,000 of proceeds from the sale of a parcel of the town’s land. The majority of the Budget Committee twice REJECTED giving the library more money. The first time, the Budget Committee simply agreed with the Selectman’s $40,000 cut for items they believed to be part of building a “free” library. The second time the Budget Committee REJECTED the recommendation of giving $110,000 to the library from the sale of town land.  In both cases they felt that the Friends of the Gilford Library promised the voters a “FREE” library and it could have been built using the original land and design drawings that were already paid for.

A third bite at the apple for the Gilford library was allowed because the Chairman didn’t adhere to previously established rules requiring that only a “prevailing” member can reopen a previously voted item. The timing of reopening the library warrant article was also such that a critical vote was absent from the discussion. Had all members been present I’m confident the outcome would have been the same as the first vote because nothing new was added to the discussion.

The “UNSAFE TO FLY” sticker has been removed but the plane is still broken!

 

Terry Stewart

Posted by Terry S. at 02:18 PM | | Comments (0)

January 24, 2008

Annual Report - Salary Info nixed by Selectmen

From the Citizen:

Despite earlier indications that it might not even address the issue, selectmen have voted against publishing detailed list of town employee salaries and benefits in the Town Report, as the Budget Committee had urged.
"We believe that putting as much information in the hands of Gilford's citizens about their local government's financial situation is among our most important challenges. An informed public is one that will make appropriate choices and decisions when it comes to making decisions at the annual meeting," Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok stated in a letter dated Jan. 1.

Yes, I was one of those who voted for the Letter to be sent to the Selectmen.

Benavides acknowledged the issue posed a dilemma, saying the board has to be aware of the balance between the needs of the voters and the needs of the town employees.
The board ultimately voted 2-1 against publishing the employee names and salaries in this year's annual report. Benavides disagreed with the other two members, asserting that while it may be harmful to the employees, the benefit to the voters outweighs that harm.
"The local government is for the people, by the people and the people have a right to know," said Benavides.

Bravo, Gus - Bravo!

Some may believe...

...that I am anti-employee for my stance on this - nonsense.  What I am comes from the same viewpoint as Gus (or more) - not anti-empoyee but much more more pro-taxpayer.  This philosophical difference brings to the fore the following question - who exists for who?  How one answers that can give the reader an idea of where one stands.  Philosophically, I believe that the town employees exist for the benefit of the town residents (and not the other way around).  I do not say that in a mean spirited way - for me, it is an obvious fact. 
"I just think we have made a lot of changes," said Selectman Connie Grant, pointing out that things like employee evaluations, additional contributions to health care premiums and a change in the pay increase policy have taxed employee morale already.
Selectman Chair Alice Boucher agreed with Grant, saying, "It just stirs up a big thing I don't think has to be. I don't think it is necessary."

Lots of changes have been made, and Connie has been at the forefront of many of them and she shoudl be applauded for leading the charge on them.  I will say that I do wish that she had moved forward with this issue as well.

Alice Boucher, from what I have seen and heard and in my opinion from the COLA last year, seems to be holding the opposite philosophical.  Thus, it is no big surprise that she would be against giving the voters an easier access to the data.

Grant said that even if the board was to seriously consider the recommendation as an actable option, she would not feel comfortable leaving the decision up to the three board members. Instead, she suggested that a warrant article would be the way to go.

I could live with that option.

Benavides asked if she would consider a motion to draft a warrant article that would ask the voters of Gilford.

Good follow through!

Grant proceeded to make a motion not to print the salaries.

Oops.

"I don't think it has to be done this year. I'm not interested in entertaining (the request)," she said.

Well, maybe a petition warrant will show up next year.....

Posted by Skip at 10:19 PM | | Comments (0)

Police Union contract - quick thoughts

From the Citizen:

With contract negotiations still in process, Gilford voters will not see any new union contracts for either Department of Public Works employees or the recently-formed Police Department union in 2008
Town Administrator Evans Juris said Tuesday that an agreement has not been reached during negations and due to the lack of time before the town vote in March, these contracts will have to be put on hold until 2009.
[snip]
The Gilford Police Department union, organized through the Teamsters Local 633, does not have an established contract to keep in place like the DPW does.

Capitalism is risky - when your company does well, the owners can do well indeed.  When it does not, the owners can lose everything. However, while luck, the level of capitalization, and timing do have an effect on the outcome, with all things otherwise sufficient and equal, the outcome is mainly dependent on the grit, determination, and brainpower of the principals.  It is the ability of the individual to succeed that matters.  Yes, the team, as it is put together, is a vital part of that.  But when it gets down to brass tacks, it is the ability of those individuals to perform that is rewarded (principals or not).

Some, on the other hand, seek safety within a group - or union.  The individual is of less importance in the actual renumeration as in most unions, it is seniority that counts and not always capability (having been around manufacturing plants for over 13 years and having to deal with unions during times of change with new software and new ways of doing things, I know this). Competition within the group is not rewarded - in fact, it is often rewarded negatively.

"They're status quo," Juris explained.
This means that until a contract is established for the department, there will be both no pay increases and no changes to benefits or anything else.

Sometimes, tying your success to a union may all that great in the short term.  Especially when your fellow non-union municipal workers may well be getting a pay raise.

"We are continuing negotiations and we are progressing, just nothing will come to the voters until March of 2009," said Juris.
Police Department union spokesmen Officer Steve Colcord was unavailable for comment.

Oops.

Posted by Skip at 09:56 PM | | Comments (0)

January 21, 2008

Budget Committee - 01-10-08 video

Lots of video; lots of talk!

 

Town Insurance and Unemployment Compensation update, discussion of the  Town Clerk / Tax Collector and a presentation of the Gunstock Acres Water District

 

 

BudComm votes to Recommend or Not Recommend the TownWarrants (especially the  Library one, Town Clerk / Tax Collector, and the NGO warrants.wmv

 

 Split out of the TownWarrants

 

 

 

      Robotics warrant


 

2007-2008 SAU Public Meeting 

Posted by Skip at 10:39 PM | | Comments (0)

Budget Committee - 01-03-08 video

You watch, you decide, and you get to comment!  Let us know what you think about the discussions that went on about the Football warrant, relocating the SAU offices, the F.I.R.S.T Robotics team, discussion about the Town warrants, and another discussion about NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations, Outside Agencies, or Charities - pick your term!)
 

 

 

 

Posted by Skip at 10:33 PM | | Comments (0)

BudComm meeting - 12/27/07

This evening, the BudComm discussed:

Football presentation by Gilford Friends of Football 

 

SAU Warrants presentation, Printing of SAU Employee salary & benefits in the Annual Town Report 

 

Just the printing of the Employee salary info in the Annual Town Report 

Posted by Skip at 10:20 PM | | Comments (0)

Budget Committee - 12/20/07 video

Two videos as the Budcomm discussed the SAU budget components.

 

 
Discussions on the Elementary & High School budgets, Overhead in the SAU, and Technology budget 

Posted by Skip at 10:13 PM | | Comments (0)

BudComm meeting - 12/18/07

Video from our mid December meeting - watch and enjoy!

 

Posted by Skip at 10:10 PM | | Comments (0)

BudComm meeting - Discussion on Outside Agencies 11-29-07

Well, time to put up a bunch of videos....and this one is where the Budget Committee members discuss whether or not it is proper, regardless of the good works that are done, to use local property tax money and donate it to charities. 

Click on the video dude to watch! 

 

Posted by Skip at 10:00 PM | | Comments (0)

January 18, 2008

Scolding a scold...

Connie Grant
Selectman Grant
.
Those that have been around our town for a while know that certain groups never, ever take NO for an answer when it comes to spending more and more of our taxdollars-- you know, the school people, the library people, and the water carriers for the social services industrial complex (outside agencies, i.e. New Beginnings, etc.)
.
We have had to listen to the whining, watch the finger wagging, and hear the threats from the library lovers at least three times in meetings prior to last night's budget committee meeting. Each time, we hear absolutely NOTHING new. It's always the same: "this budget committee is delivering a slap in the face to the donors." I'll address that in another post.
.
At the outset of last night's budget committee meeting, the chairman (time for some new blood here, BTW) stated that the purpose of the meeting was to consider input that was given at last week's public hearings on several matters. After bending over and doing everything he could to entice the budcom into a revote on their position on giving the library 100K from the proceeds of the sale of the land never used for a library as rejected by the voters, Chairman Hickok got what he wanted: more discussion on the matter. And why not? He knew that one of the key opponents was not in attendance, and he knew that 'Ol Reliable, Bill Phillips, would cave to the spenders, as he always does.
.
OK, Fine. That's the way it goes. After a rehash of the whole debate again, Skip Murphy "called the question." Well, you know what that means-- if it's Doug Lambert, or any of those trying to work on behalf of hapless taxpayers, all discussion IMMEDIATELY stops and the question is called. Otherwise, if it's a spending rumpswab, they get to continue and carry on with discussion. Anyway, following Skip's call for the vote, a person in the audience- one of our esteemed Selectmen, decided that she needed to get one last threat and fingerwag in against the budget committee. The chairman, clueless once again about parlimentary procedure, decided to let Selectman Grant have her shot at the budget committee. Once into full whine mode, she called the budget committee an "obstacle" to people like her and her ilk from getter their way.
.
Because she was offering nothing new to the discussion, and that it was improper for her to be speaking given the "rules" (such as they were) as laid out by the Chairman, I cried foul and asked the Chair to do his job and enforce normal rules of operation.
.
This is a note I sent out to members of the Budget Committee and media following last night's meeting:
I would like to remind everybody that Connie Grant was offering nothing new for the discussion when she was allowed to speak AFTER Skip moved the question. Her input was purely emotion and was nothing substantive in any way, shape or form. The Chairman said that the rules were that we would ONLY consider info we learned from the public hearing. What would have happened if my wife had wanted to speak? Selectman Grant was simply granted special privileges because she is a selectman. The selectmen are already well represented at the table.
. 
Giving Ms. Grant mic time given the point we were at in the meeting,  JUST PRIOR TO A VOTE gave the pro-library big spenders an unfair advantage. The input she gave was that the budget committee was being a stumbling block to what SHE saw as right. This input had no place in our deliberations. I stand by my point of order interruption and wish that the committee as a whole would become more conversant in parlimentary protocols. Calling the question is just that.
. 
Remember, Ms. Grant, while not a member of the committee, tried to particpate in a vote at last Tuesday's meeting by raising her hand (it's all on tape). While some may laugh this off as simple meaningless childsplay, there are some of us out here that take process very seriously. I'm sure if someone like Wayne Snow or Dick Campbell had watched this behavior, it would have caused their eyebrows to raise at the very least. The selectman raising her hand (while the actual selectman member of the committee sat in the audience, further confusing things) during a committee vote seems to me nothing less than an attempt to cajole and intimidate. I make no apologies for my action, and will most likely write about this on the 'Grok. The public's business is serious stuff. The politics are rather intense at times. Unfortunately, some people don't know this. It ain't bean bag!
 
Doug
It is unfortunate that some people get involved in politics and forget that that's what it is-- POLITICS! Ms. Grant is so angry at me, she is ten shades of red. Why? Because I choose to freely exercise my right to free speech, critical of my government. Given our brief exchange about free speech and the exercise thereof following last week's public hearing, I know where she's coming from. Yep-- she's another person in politics that sees such rights as nothing more than a pain in the ass-- hers! Oh well... It's people in government just like her that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment.
.

Posted by Doug at 07:03 AM | | Comments (0)

January 16, 2008

A place to live, or Boy Scout camp? The nanny state as nanny town.

I'm sorry, but I have an ingrained problem with government involvment in every facet of our lives. Whether it's learning closet organizational skills and baby yoga at the library or sex education in schools, I just believe it's too much. Why is it that our local property taxes, in addition to what we pay on the state and federal levels, have to be used to further the helplessness of individuals and families in our present day society?
.
Given this latest little tidbit from the Citizen, I have to wonder, did I move into a town to live and work, or did I simply end up where I was as a teenager: Boy Scout camp?
The Gilford Parks and Recreation Department is sponsoring four fun snowshoe hikes geared specifically toward families. These hikes are designed to get families out into the woods and fields for some fun exercise and socialization.
"Fun exercise and SOCIALIZATION?!" I've got to believe our forefathers must be rolling in their graves over this stuff.
.
Oh, and what if you don't have snowshoes? In the olden days, before socialism showed up on the scene, an American would simply participate in the FREE MARKETPLACE and go to the store and BUY THEM. Not any more, reports the Citizen piece:
If you are in need of snowshoes, call ahead and shoes can be provided for the hike.
This is why we pay our local property taxes, taken under the threat of the loss of our homes? Once we are completely helpless and reliant on government for EVERYTHING, then what? Is there no end?

Posted by Doug at 04:49 PM | | Comments (0)

January 15, 2008

I looked up the definition of milquetoast, and guess whose picture I found?

Gilford Selectmen
Gilford Board of Selectmen (GG file photo)
.
The FreeDictionary.com defines milquetoast as:
One who has a meek, timid, unassertive nature.
And so it goes for our selectmen, chronically unable to make decisions, always looking instead to punt. "Elect us," they say, "but let the cup of hard decisions not pass our lips." Thus it is with the latest item to come knocking on their door: the request by the budget committee to publish the salaries and benefits costs of all municipal employees in the town's annual report. Rather than take a position, they have instead decided to simply ignore the letter. This way, by the time they decide, if they ever do, it will be too late to make it to this year's book. How convenient!
.
The Citizen had a story today that pretty much sums it up:
The topic did not appear on the Selectmen's agenda and Grant declined to bring it up as an issue when given the chance.
.
"If I don't have to talk about it, I'm not going to," said Grant.
.
"We don't have to do anything (with their request)," said Boucher, leaning toward Grant.
Our town desperately needs somebody to run for Selectmen to provide some badly needed leadership. One way, or another. Remember, this is the same bunch that voted to meet in the evenings, but don't.
.
"Not doing anything" is what they do best!
.
[UPDATE] I received a rather nasty email from one of the selectmen disputing my take on this. As I told the person, unless the meetings are at night, I generally cannot attend. Therefore, I must rely on the newspaper reporting. I checked with the reporter who wrote the story and he stands by it. The selectman insists that the salary printing discussion WILL take place in a timely fashion, with enough time for inclusion in this year's Annual Report. I hope that happens, and they prove my contention above wrong. I'll gladly eat crow if I am...
 

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

January 14, 2008

Listen to the discussion of the Gunstock development & planning proposal.

As noted in the prior post, we had Gunstock Commission member Bill McLean in studio Saturday on Meet The New Press radio to discuss the proposed planning and development plan for the county-owned area.
.
To download as .mp3 files use these links:

Gunstock proposal w/ Bill McLean Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4

Or simply use the handy players below:


powered by ODEO


powered by ODEO


powered by ODEO


powered by ODEO

.

Posted by Doug at 05:37 PM | | Comments (0)

January 11, 2008

Gunstock "reborn"?

Gunstock
.
When I first caught wind of the proposed public/private partnership proposal being bandied about for Gunstock, the red flags flew. "What are they up to now," I thought? Well, before I let my kneejerk reaction take me unawares, I went straight to the source, Gunstock Commission chair William J. McLean, III of Gilford. After a rather lengthy conversation, I came to be somewhat excited about what they are proposing to do. So much so, that I figured Bill should come on the radio and share the planned ideas with more Belknap County residents. (Click here for details on how to listen)
.
Here are a few key pieces of the idea taken from the powerpoint proposal the Commissioners have prepared:
The Gunstock Commissioners recognize the need to raise capital to fund future improvements to keep Gunstock competitive in our markets. 
Mindful of the sensitivity of the notion of using county taxpayer dollars, the Commissioners have come up with a proposal to find alternative ways of funding future area improvements along with adding new attractions to bring more tourist $$ into the region. With that in mind, The Gunstock Commissioners are proposing to
"explore a partnership with a private entity (or entities) that would work with management, the commissioners, and elected county officials to come up with a strategic plan that would ensure the growth and survival of this unique asset."
The bottom line?
Left alone --- doing business as usual --- is a risky and potentially devastating strategy for Gunstock in light of the serious issues the mountain faces. Closing should not be considered an option:  Gunstock generates between $45 to 50 million into the Lakes Region economy annually and provides jobs for over 500 people.  It is a key economic engine to the region.
.
Gunstock needs, like any  21st century business, to grow and adapt to the challenges of the real world and the marketplace today. A truly high-end, first class, 4-season resort doesn’t exist this close to the Boston market. Most all major ski areas have adopted a formula that utilizes real estate as a part of their over all revenue stream to succeed.
.
The Gunstock Commissioners are best suited to facilitate this process and protect the interests of the county.
Agree? Disagree? We'll talk with Bill, and continue to keep a sharp eye..
.
Oh, and another thing-- this should include new taxable properties for Gilford. :-)
.

 

Posted by Doug at 08:34 PM | | Comments (0)

January 09, 2008

Paul Blandford - we want to keep the control

No secret - I am in favor of printing the employee salaries in the Town Annual Report for both the Town and SAU employees.  My feeling is that since taxpayers are paying the freight, they are entitled to see the manifest.

The argument has been - hey, why make it easy for taxpayers?  They can come in and do a Right To Know anytime they want to get the information.

This proves the argument:

Blandford questioned the need to publicize the information at all, since the public has access to it through making a formal Right-to-Know request for the information.
As it stands now the district keeps track of who makes Right-to-Know requests in town and what information they are seeking.
Blandford said that should the information be printed in the town's annual report, the district would lose their monitoring "control."

I have, in the past, requested employee data from both the Town and the SAU under Right To Know requests and posted it on GilfordGrok.  I have already done the request for both the Town and the SAU for this year and will most likely post it again. 

For someone like me, this is not a big deal.  I care not a whit who thinks what when I do so and use that data.  People may like it, or they may not.  I believe that I am doing the right thing by taxpayers when I do so.

The above statement by Mr. Blandford is very chilling, in my opinion.  It is one thing to accept an RTK request and then file it....I have no problem with that.  What his statements say, however, is that "we are watching you".  Face it, this kills most folks willingness to stick their necks out.  For those of us who have made the decision to make local politics what we do, well, it comes with the territory (and even then, there are those that do not wish the limelight).  For a regular Joe Sixpack, this is a move that could be fraught with terror.  Like the idea or not, many of not most parents will not put their kids in danger of retribution. 

The Budget Committee, in a letter to both the School Board and Board of Selectmen, said was that it was important for the voters to have the information when deciding issue of the budget. This rational particularly applies when voting teacher contracts up or down.

Thus, why NOT make it easier for taxpayers to make decisions that affect their wallets?

"The reality is that the (the School Board and Budget Committee) that are making the decisions have the information, so the people that need to know, know," said Weeks.

With all due respect, Ms. Weeks is wrong.  True, it is up to the School Board to conduct their contract agreements (directly or through proxies), thus, they need the information.  The BudComm needs the information so that we can, to the best of our ability, make a recommendation to the voters - THE legislative body in Gilford.

However, it is the VOTERS / TAXPAYERS  that actually make the decision.  It is they that will vote to accept the teachers contract (and the police contract).  Thus they NEED this information to vote correctly, not according to my notions, not to the notions of the School Board or to the employees, but to the  needs and notions of the taxpayers.  And that is all that counts.

The legality of publishing such information was questioned, however teacher salaries, the names associated, and a dollar amount attributed to the benefits being given are public information subject to the New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law.

During the debates of the BudComms, I have heard the conflation of public vs private employees data.  For those who earn (and they do earn it) their pay from the taxpayers, it is public.  The argument has been made that since the private sector does not, neither should we print the public data (trying to make the two sectors equivalent).  They are not, nor should they be.

Simply put - if you do not wish your data to be publicly available, go work in the private sector.  One works where they do by choice - it is not by entitlement or by someone forcing it upon you.

The board directed Superintendent Paul DeMinico to send along the information the teachers union, discuss it with district leadership staff, and consult the Board of Selectmen on how they will proceed in printing the town employee side of things.

On another note, I wonder at the rhetoric passed by the School Board that we, the Budget Committee, should have butted out of their business last year during the football and health insurance kerfuffles.  They said that they were elected to make the decisions - we should not stray into their policies (I disagree, as anything with a $ attached to it IS the perview of the BudComm). 

Yet, I review the Citizen's article and wonder - so why are they now "sharing" the letter, that they have to get input from their leadership / admins and the teachers' union?

This tells me that it is only expedient to insist on their decision making rights when they want, and then not when convenient.

"This is the public sector," DeMinico explained to the board.

Posted by Skip at 09:38 AM | | Comments (0)

January 08, 2008

Gilford Vote Totals

Total Votes: 3,572
  • Republican Ballots: 1,935
  • Democrat Ballots:   1,637
Here are the vote totals for the Republican candidates:
  • McCain: 740
  • Romney: 735
  • Giuliani: 139
  • Huckabee: 139
  • Ron Paul: 78
  • Thompson: 21
  • Hunter: 8
  • Daniel Gilbert: 2
  • Wuensche: 1
  • Keyes: 1
Here are the vote totals for the Democrats:
  • Obama: 668
  • Hillary: 595
  • Edwards: 246
  • Richardson: 80
  • Kucinich: 19
  • Biden: 5
  • Gravel: 2
  • Caligiuri: 1
  • Capalbo: 1

Posted by Doug at 09:52 PM | | Comments (0)

January 05, 2008

Budcom votes YES on football? What's changed?

Vote No
.
I got this email from a Gilford resident yesterday:
Doug,
I am a little surprised by the Budget Committee's recent 180 on endorsing the $22,500 for Football in the upcoming school budget.  Can you explain why the committee has now supported this?  What's changed?
I, Doug, was NOT at Thursday's BudCom meeting. I stated the week before that I was opposed to funding football through the school and I remain so opposed. I have no explanation why Sue Greene was the only one on the committee to vote "no".
.
It is my belief that government, (in this case the school) ruins everything it touches. The present football program is quite good and functions well. When the school takes it, new, onerous requirements that NOBODY EVEN WANTS will be forced into effect-- i.e. paying coaches, chain gang members, etcetera.
.
If the parents of those involved in the game are unwilling to do this stuff for free FOR THEIR OWN CHILDREN, then I say they can go crap in their hats! 
.
I am told that those who have been funding the program are either unable, or unwilling to do so anymore, and that is why the taxpayers must now pay. This is really too bad, because once again, it exposes THE BIG LIE purveyed by the original boosters of the program when they, in chorus, shouted, stated, wrote, and otherwise ballyhooed the fact that this would NEVER COST THE TAXPAYERS A DIME. Gregg "as long as I live this won't cost taxpayers a dime" Dickinson sold his bank for millions of dollars. Where is he now? Derek Thomlinson is on record saying he would "write the check" for some 18 grand. Hello? Derek signed the petition to take the dough from taxpayers.
.
The bottom line is, while I congratulate the fact that they are at least bringing this forward as a warrant article, they are still going against their original claims when this all started...
.
People like myself and Sue Greene warned about this from the very beginning. Good people denied us to our faces that our predictions would come true. We have both steadfastly held our positions on this, because after years of observation, we knew that this would be the end result-- and we knew that they were lying... because their LIPS WERE MOVING!!!!!!!!!!!
.
To those that say, "But Doug, the fact is that this is a GOOD program, and the money people are now broke (oh really?). What about the children?" My answer is that they should have thought about this in the first place. They should have listened to the few lone voices that warned that this would happen. It is THOSE people that we should be questioning-- the ones responsible for giving this latest "gift" to the taxpayers. (Man my butt is sore from all the "free gifts" we get in this town...)
.
As to the budget committee vote-- as I said, I wasn't there. I'll leave it to the rest (other than Sue) to explain what has changed...
.
My guess is that they did this out of fear of being unpopular. Because the budget preparers played the rope-a-dope with the budget committee- first offering a budget with a small percent increase, thus lulling everyone into a sense of peace and harmony-- followed by a flurry of budget add-ons at the very last seconds of the game-- most of the budget committee members don't want a big fight in the eleventh hour. And by falling for the "reduced" budget of "only" $22,500, they are willing, apparently, to sell their souls. You know 22,500 will "only" be thirty grand next year... for the children, of course.

We are told that the costs will be offset by fundraised revenues.

Just remember-- these are the same people that said football would never cost the taxpayers a dime!

I predict that in three years, the fundraising will disapear. Why should anybody engage in this when they can just rip money straight from our wallets? And why would a chain gangster work for free when they can make a few bucks doing it instead? Besides, the teachers (who will ultimately be the only ones "qualified" to do this stuff) need that extra dough...
.
I stand ashamed of the vote taken by my fellow budget committee members, as they are enabling those that knowingly engaged in this sophisticated fleecing of the taxpayers to get their way-- all the while using the kids as the means to their end.

At least there is one more chance at saving football from the clutches of the government system--JUST VOTE NO on voting day!

Oh, and just remember, I have it on good authority that hockey will be next. Does it ever stop? How can we need more and more and more in this era of declining enrollment? Does anyone even think about that? What happens when we don't have enough kids to fill our sports teams? Will we need to import some illegal children to play the games Americans won't play? (Gotta keep figuring out ways to keep the budgets & exhorbitant salaries up, you know...)

Posted by Doug at 07:16 AM | | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (0)