GilfordGrok

We have no problem with commercial entities that spend their capital for signage to show whatever they want, when ever they want, and how they want.  As you can see, we're not all that enthused over the planning ordinance here. 

Article 2:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs, by adding to the existing Section 8.4.8 regulations regarding Electronic Changeable Copy Signs.  The proposed regulations limit the frequency at which messages are allowed to change; restrict hours of operation; and prohibit certain display methods including, but not limited to, flashing and image movement.

Principle: Private Properties rights.  If they are in the Commercial district, don't think us all so stupid that we adults will lose utter control of our vehicles just because a sign is changing.  Plain condescending (or appeals to those that wish to be overly "orderly")

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "No" on all of this article. 

Posted by Skip at 10:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

'Grok Thumb - withheld 

This is supposed to bring Gilford into line with the State.  We do not care.

Article 3:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend subparagraph (a) of Section 5.2.1,  Island and Shore Frontage District, by increasing the minimum setback required from Lake Winnipesaukee, Saltmarsh Pond, Lily Pond, Poor Farm Brook, Meadow Brook, Jewett Brook, Gunstock River, or any other year_round brook, from forty (40) feet to fifty (50) feet.

Principle: It helps to be in line with State Law.

Our recommendation is "your choice"

Posted by Skip at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down 

We believe that this is being brought by those, having moved in lately into the area and are not happy having to share it with businesses.  Steve Nix; I believe he lives in that area and he spoke in favor of the motion at the Public Session.

Our take?  This is like people who knowingly move near an airport and upon getting annoyed at the air traffic, want the hours of operation shortened because of the noise (our wants trump your rights).

Our feelings are primarily over what has been there (the Ames Farm, the Stephenson business, et al) a long, long time FIRST.  This feels like "we cannot shut it down, so let's use the leverage of government to make it difficult for them so they will give up and shut down".

Want another example? Think the Cheapo Depot problem and the Laconia folks who looked down at this business as "we want better" and used regulations to almost put them out of business.

Note to those residents: It was there before you moved there; if you didn't like it, you shouldn't have moved there.

Article 4:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by petition for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Gilford by changing from the Resort Commercial (RC) Zone to the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone the area along the southwesterly side of Route 11, a/k/a Lake Shore Road, generally between the Alton town line and Highland Drive.  (The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.)

Principle: Private Property rights should not be abridged just because you are annoyed with the general environs (as long as they are otherwise following the law)

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO!" on  this article. 

 

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

 Two 'Grok Thumbs Up

Everything is funded, a few new things were added ('Don't tase me, bro!").  It is a good budget - fair to the Town Administration and fair to the taxpayers. 

Article 5:  Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,825,284?  Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,874,772 which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.  NOTE: This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Principle: Lower spending results in lower taxes.  The budget, without the other warrant articles, is below the rate of inflation.  Good job! 

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on  this article. 

Posted by Skip at 09:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One 'Grok Thumb Up 

Awfully expensive...big ticket item.  Yet, because of the Town putting money away earlier, we won't get zapped as much this year. 

Article 6:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of two hundred fourteen thousand dollars ($214,000) to purchase a new ambulance and authorize the withdrawal of one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) from the Capital Reserve Fund created for that purpose.  The balance of one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000) is to come from general taxation.(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: putting money away a bit at a time works.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of this article.

Posted by Skip at 09:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

'Grok Thumb Up 

Like the later articles (13 - 16), they make sense.  We will be spending this money in the future, so let's put some away now. 

Article 8:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 9:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 10:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Ambulance Replacement Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 11:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of the maintenance of the Glendale Boat and Launch Ramp Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: put money away so as to not spike the tax rate later when the bill comes in.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of these articles.

Posted by Skip at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

'Grok - neutral 

I will probably be voting no; I understand the longer term ramifications, but I'm not convinced that the amount of the monies needed will spike the tax rate.

Article 12:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of maintaining the Town’s Recreation Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: Capital Reserve Funds, IMHO, should be for larger amounts.

Recommendation: your call. 

Posted by Skip at 09:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

One 'Grok Thumb Up

Run of the mill; "sure" - they make sense.  'Nuff said. 

Article 13:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be placed in the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 14:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Water Supply Maintenance and to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. 
(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 15:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Compensated Absences Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee)

Article 16:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Building Repair Capital Reserve Fund.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: putting some money ahead of time keeps the tax rate steadier.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes" on all of these articles.

Posted by Skip at 09:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down

There is certainly much angst about this new "free" library both within the Selectmen.  The Selectmen  decided to not fund new Budget requests that the Library Trustees had made (and the BudComm supported) but then decided to give the following money to the Trustees (and the BudComm first did not recommend and then, with a later vote flip, supported).

Article 17:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $110,000 for use by the Library Trustees at the new library.  Funding to be provided from the proceeds of the sale of land at 43 Potter Hill Road, parcel number 226-078.001.  This parcel was purchased in 2004 to build a new library.  This article is a one time appropriation and is contingent upon adequate proceeds from the sale of the land.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: we believe that the the money should be returned to the citizens as the Library Trustees both built their own project and on their own land.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO" on all of this article.

Posted by Skip at 09:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down
(Wish we had more thumbs...) 

We are philosophically opposed to the use of local property taxes to fund these charities / Non-Governmental Organizations / Outside Agencies.

It is much easier to convince a few elected or appointed officials to give taxpayer money to them so that is why their concentration on Government instead of the citizenry. I believe that charity, and the donations to charities, should be an individual choice - the voluntary giving of one's personal funds is a true act of charity.

Governmental bodies giving tax money to charities is neither charity nor voluntary on behalf of the taxpayers.

Remember, if you vote "yes" to all of these, you are raising taxes by  $81,435.  While you may individually be in favor of one or more of these organizations, ask yourself "Is it right to coerce your neighbor to support that otherwise they would not"?

Personally, I have my slate of charities that I give to - I really do not want to give to this set and would rather be able to give my money to those I believe deserve it better.

Article 18:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $32,359 for the Youth Services Bureau.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 19:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $23,500 for Community Health and Hospice,Inc.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 20:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,400 for Child and Family Services.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen,  Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 21:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,345 for the Community Action Program.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 22:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $1,800 for New Beginnings.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 23:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,749 for Genesis Behavioral Health.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 24:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,330 for the American Red Cross.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle:  Charity, by definition, is an individual choice and decision, not governmental.  It is not Charity when tax money has to be given to fund a charity.

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "NO" on all of these article.

Also, our recommendation to these NGOs is to reach out to citizens instead  of the Towns; solicit charitable donations and not tax money.

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

Two 'Grok Thumbs Up

We have not amused at the politics being played out in and around the Town Clerk / Tax Collector's office lately (Who is Yanking Who'se Chain?).  We support Denise in her efforts of watching out for the independence of this elected office. 

Article 25:  To see if the Town will vote to pay the Town Clerk/Tax Collector an annual stipend of $57,952.  In addition the Town Clerk/Tax Collector shall be entitled to 95% of the premium for the town’s health insurance plan, 100% of the dental insurance premium, 100% of the short and long term disability plans, life insurance with a face value of 165% of the annual stipend (not to exceed $100,000).  Additionally, the Town will continue making contributions to the NH State Retirement System at the effective contribution rate (currently 8.74%).  Total value of package is $74,588. 

Principle: Public servants should be paid....even if they are elected. 

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "Yes".

Question - being the Manager of a department, is this at a rate equivalent of the other department heads?   I guess it may be time to review salary and salary burdens again.......soon.....

Posted by Skip at 08:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down 

This is like the earlier Non-Governmental Organizations (or, if you prefer, "Outside Agencies") - social organizations that wish to do their fundraising via soliciting tax money from governmental bodies instead of broad appeals to the general public. 

Article 26:  To see if the taxpayers of the Town of Gilford will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to support the activities and facilities of the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable organization that operates a variety of sailing programs for residents of the Lakes Region.  These programs include: a Youth Sailing School; a Community Sailing Program for adults; and a soon to be established Adaptive Sailing Program for physically and mentally challenged children and adults, including wounded veterans returning from combat operations.  Programs are open to all Lakes Region residents regardless of their ability to pay.  (Submitted by Petition) (Not Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: Charities should fundraise from citizens, not their governments. 

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "No".

Our recommendation to the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association is to reach out to citizens instead  of the Towns; solicit charitable donations and not tax money.

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

Most people have heard of the phrase "lawyer-up!".  Well, time to "official up!".

Why?  I'm hearing some rumbling going on - not just loud whispers and ill-tempered remarks but I believe it will be the movement of feet walking on over the Belknap County complex next week for the "public session" on the County Budget.  And it isn't just me with the angst out there.

Again, the problem is with the County Budget. You know the one - the one that our County Convention - our State Reps - approved only AFTER pushing up the budget $700,000 over what the County Commissioners wanted.

Seems like the folks who've spent a lot of time crafting local Town or City budgets that are respectful of the taxpayer money but still providing services are a bit P.O'd and will be there on MARCH 4.  I'm believing that a couple of the Gilford folks associated with our budget process are going to wander on over there.  Sounds like a bunch of the Laconia folks are doing so as well.  And a couple other towns (If I believe the Citizen report as well)

You know, it seems that the County is becoming, as Howie Carr might say, a "Outside Agency hack-a-rama".  It doesn't matter what the Fed eligibility standards are, nor the State's - the County is going to meet the needs of everyone by lowering its standards. And do so regardless of the cost.  Regardless of who it may hurt.  After all, the extra spending has to come from taxes.   

Laconia is under a tax cap - with the 13% more needed by taxes, that could mean layoffs in Laconia - did the County Convention care?  If folks cannot pay their property tax bills (higher spending means higher taxes, after all), does the Convention care?  Their officials are going to be there.

Here in Gilford, the additional amount works out to be about $34 / person - a family of four is $136.  

Now let me turn the tables, as being one that is for less or stable government rather than more, I'm the one who gets nailed by being called cold hearted, misery, selfishnes, and others. So what's that example that is always thrown my way.  Oh yeah - single mom, semi-skilled, with 3 kids, and earns $9/hour.  So now, the County believes that they can spend that $136 from that single mom better than she can for her family?  And remember, while she may not have real property, that property tax increase is going to be passed along with an increase in rent.

Why should the County be able to raise it's income by 13% without us, the taxpayers, having a say?  Because we don't unless we show up.

Oh yeah, I forgot - "officialing up"! Will any of the Gilford Selectmen or the Town Administration be there to fight for the taxpayers of Gilford?

Posted by Skip at 08:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just like the snow I can no longer plow (no place to put it!), things seem to be piling up in the Town Clerk / Tax Collector's office in a fairly short amount of time.  First it was the brouhaha over whether or not the Selectmen / Town Administrator had the legal right to evaluate the TC/TC for job performance and adjust the salary attached to the position.  The Budget Committee covered this in its process - I believe that they (Selectmen and Town Administrator) cannot and will not try this again.  The TC/TC salary will also be a line item in future budgets that can be watched by all.

Then there was the reassignment by the Town Administrator (or so I have heard) of one of the workers in that office.  The ripple effect meant a cut in the hours that the office could be open.  Hey, I liked that late hour option - one of the few depts open after normal business hours for us regular folk (and yes, I did take advantage of it).

Not a smooth move, folks!

Now let's add another one!  From the Steamer (I really wish they'd have separate addresses / URLs for these articles!):

The Board of Selectmen has decided to look into other options for depositing town money after hearing last week from concerned town officials, particularly the police department, which is currently responsible for making the daily deposits.

Town Clerk/ Tax Collector Denise Morrissette explained the process that Gilford has been using for years to the selectmen and said that the procedure has worked fine and she saw no reason to change it. The Town Clerk's office counts and processes all the money received that day and places it in a locked bag in a vault bolted to the floor. The police department is then called, and an officer takes possession of the bag and deposits the money at the bank.

What could be safer than having our police do the transfer?  Who really wants to mess with them over money?

[snip]

The statute now says that the treasurer can delegate someone to deposit money for the town as long as that employee is covered by the municipalities liability insurance. Morrissette noted that the town could add any position onto the liability insurance at no cost to the town, so the police department could easily continue handling deposits.

There are times that things that have been done for years may need change.  Others, not so much.

However, the police department expressed concern with the current procedure and said that it was a safety hazard. If an officer has to go to an emergency call, then they have to be able to drop what they are doing and service that call. Having a great deal of money in a police vehicle would be unsafe for the officer and the money. The alternative of transporting a passenger to deposit the money could also create the same safety issue if an emergency call was received.

Taken at face value, I'd say, OK, it makes sense.  BUT!  How many times in the past has this really been a real problem here in Gilford?  Yes, I've watched the call stats go up (and have watched what constitutes and is reported as a call as well). 

C'mon, do we have THAT much crime or such a number of emergencies that the particular officer tagged to do the deposit cannot be taken "offline" for the small amount of time to do the deposit? 

And really...

"I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill," said Morrissette. "The process has worked fine so far."

Now throw in the appearance of one "issue" after another associated with the TC/TC, usually of an adverse manner to Denise Morrissette.  If I was a conspiracy type person......or more of a political Machievellian type person.....well....?

Selectman Chair Alice Boucher responded to Morrissette, saying that obviously the police department is not interested in continuing the arrangement.

Ms. Boucher, if you got the determination to say jump, they would say "how high, ma'am?".  After all, Denise has it exactly right:

"They work for you, that's all I can say," Morrissette told the board. "They would do what you told them to do."

Exactly.  It doesn't matter if the Police dept. doesn't want to do it - if the Selectmen say TO do it, they will.  After all, the Selectmen are elected to make decisions - and the police, being employees, would have to follow those lawful orders (like it or not).

The key here is not the TC/TC, not the Police dept, not even the Town Administrator (although Evans Juris can overrule the Police department's non-interest as well), but the Selectmen.   

I sometimes wonder who does work for who.  After all, look over at the SAU - the bosses want to save the SAU money and be closer to the students.  And LOOK at the SAU staff rebel against this.  While it is nice to share the information, we pay a lot of buck to Dr. DiMinico to MAKE DECISIONS.  We elect the School Board to make decisions.  They made a decision.  Deal with it.

Gee, is that a real turf battle - knowing that once the SAU office move over, those empty classrooms would never be classrooms again?  And could never be filled by more teachers? In this case, the good Dr. and School Board is making the right decision.  

The motto here at the 'Grok is to thank them when they're right, and spank them when they're wong.  Gus, I've thanked you in the past.....but not this time:

Selectman Gus Benavides said that many businesses hire couriers to transport money and suggested that the town look into the cost of hiring a courier or figuring out someone who could be delegated to deposit the money other than the police.

Kibosh this idea quick as we do NOT, nor should not,  have to spend money to do this!  I'd rather keep the current process than pay an outside agency (heh!) to do it.

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

Once more, an issue comes up....and gets a "what do we do" treatment. From the Citizen:

The Gilford Board of Selectmen is skirting a fine line around New Hampshire's Right-to-Know law as it considers holding nonpublic sessions to determine whether or not to dismiss members on the facility planning committee.

Over the last 13 months, the FPC has been working toward an addition to the police station that will address the space needs of the department. Just before coming forward with a plan, the selectmen put the brakes on the project and left the committee waiting in the wings.

All ahead - full stop!  Ramp it up, get it going, go to work, slam into the wall!

Lacking any direction or mission moving forward, the steering rests in the hands of the selectmen. Taking a critical look at the committee, selectmen have suggested several adjustments, including a possible reduction in membership.

The board agreed that a direction would have to wait until after the March 11 voting when citizens will decide whether to appropriate $150,000 toward the continuation of the project. However, Selectman Connie Grant wanted to get the membership question resolved.

First shoe drops:

"In going forward, we should talk about members in nonpublic session," said Grant.

"I would not want to say some of the things about the people in public. That shouldn't be public," added Chair Alice Boucher.

Both explained that much of the decision on whether to continue having a specific committee member serve would deal with their personalities and also their conduct on the committee.

After the board suspended the committee's activities just before they were to bring a proposal before the voters, many members were displeased, though few publicly expressed their feelings.

There does seem to have been progress on the plans, but then it seemed to have hit the wall all of a sudden.  And yes, I know that there has been some "complaining" about how the go-no-go decision was made about putting the Police Station on this year's Warrant.

But to start hocking people overboard?  And at this point, with this exchange (and since one of my pet peeves is that the Selectmen continue to have their meetings when employees can be there but most taxpayers cannot), I can only rely on the reporting.

From my view...

Look, it is an official sub-committee of the Selectmen and they can do with it as they wish.  But all of the rest of us certainly have the right to say what we wish and want (and for those few, the will). 

Sorry, but since this has come to light, it seems that the Selectmen are now going to head for cover.....and there is a problem for them coming right up.

The assertion of Boucher and Grant was that, because what was likely to come up during discussion could adversely affect the reputation of individuals discussed, the Right-to-Know law allowed for the conversation to take place out of the public eye.

The Right To Know Law, RSA 91-A: 3 II Exception C allows for the exclusion of "matters which, if discussed in public, would likely affect adversely the reputations of any person, other than a member of the body or agency itself."

And being a duly constituted sub-committee of the Selectmen, I believe that the FPC committee members ARE a member of that board (and no, I am not a lawyer - just IMHO here).  This says "any person, OTHER than a member...." - and they ARE members, right?  The Citizen article (most likely backed up by counsel) agrees:

The Board of Selectmen is the governing body of the town. All committees formed by the board are subcommittees of the board and thus are a part of the governing body, including the facility planning committee.

Heh!  And the Selectmen are probably on the hook, given their past history: 

Selectman Gus Benavides pointed that out, noting that, in appointing members to the energy committee, the board took the matter up publicly and even expressed personality reasons why some applicants were not appointed.

So why do they feel they should do the FPC in private session when they treated the Energy Committee differently?  Well, looking at the members of the FPC might give a clue, and to the remarks made when the Selectmen drove the process to a screeching halt? 

Others think that the ability to go into non-public session may be bogus in this matter as well: 

The Citizen and other local media outlets challenged the board's right to enter into nonpublic session for purposes of discussing the membership of the FPC.

And it was repeated in the Steamer:

In response to a question from the media, the selectmen said they wanted to discuss the membership of the committee in non-public and referenced RSA 91-A: 3 II (a). The RSA states that the dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee, the hiring of a public employee or other matters which could adversely affect the reputation of the public employee, can be done in non-public session.

Well, here's the RSA: 

Only the following matters shall be considered or acted upon in nonpublic session:

(a) The dismissal, promotion or compensation of any public employee or the disciplining of such employee, or the investigation of any charges against him, unless the employee affected (1) has a right to a meeting and (2) requests that the meeting be open, in which case the request shall be granted. 

Well, it seems that no matter which RSA was quoted (be it the Steamer or the Citizen), the Selectmen are not entitled to it, as either the FPC committee members ARE part of the governing body; they are certainly not public employees 

"This could affect reputations," said Selectmen Alice Boucher. "We are likely to be discussing things more in-depth than during the appointments. Those were based around experience. This would be on how the committee works together."

And once again, without trying to be Captain Obvious,  you collectively have not done so.  By acting in such a manner that you made the top headline in the Steamer, you have now placed all of the FPC members into a suspect status.

So, can it be made any worse?

There is an old saying "Lead, follow, or get out of the way".  Another is "Stand up for your convictions".  And of course "Just do it".

Posted by Skip at 05:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

COUNTY TAX TO JUMP 13%

Well folks, once again you are going to dig further into your wallet to pay taxes.  While the Town / SAU taxes are trending into the right direction, you are still going to get hit - a 13% up swing!

Who is watching the store at the County on behalf of the tax payers?  Go ahead, name somebody!

Unlike our SB2 town where the BudCom and the citizens themselves get to vote on whether or not the budget passes, we normal folk have no say in this process directly at the County.  Yet, we do have to pay for their budget no matter what they do (or want to do).

Or the cost to us.  We are just ATM machines that cough it up at their behest. 

So, who does?  The Belknap County Convention does, and it is made up of of the Belknap County Representatives (look to your left for names and link).

They have the power to approve or disaprove of this - or at the very least, let them know of your disapproval.  Call them, email them, or go chase them down.

Increases are:

They will spend more until we get the gumption to say "only as much as we get more". 

Posted by Skip at 03:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When I scanned the chart that was printed in the Citizen today ("Lakes Region follows trend in NECAP test scores") in the dead tree version (the chart is not online at this time), I was not happy at all.  The first thing that went through my mind was "we pay how much for this kind of a result?"  Guess what happens in the private sector.....especially if this had been going on for years and years.

To be honest, I don't know if the Citizen asked the Gilford SAU their comments.  Frankly, if I was on the Gilford School Board or SAU Staff, I'd be ducking too.  This is just plain embarrassing for  parents that expect better.

Number of students tested:    143

Level 1 - Substantially  Below Proficient     Level 2 - Partially Proficient
Level 3 -  Proficient                                Level 4 - Proficient with distinction 

Got that?  40% of our 11th Graders - 35- are less than proficient in Reading????

Well, there's always Math, right?

Oy vay! Only THREE QUARTERS of our kids can't do math at the level at which they should be doing.  Got that?  110 kids aren't at the level that they are supposed to be at!!!

Well,  at least they can write, right?

Oops..not quite.  For the record - 84% is 120 students

40%, 77%, and 84%

Bad to worse to horrible....Sigh....

BTW, the numbers are from the Citizen - I take no credit or blame for the Reading and Writing cumulatives totaling other than 100% (other than the usual "fat-fingeritis" we all suffer from at times).

I'll be reviewing this against the other results I've posted before....and cross checking against the NH DOE site later.

I am almost all but sure that the following will be absolutely raise a few hackles, but since this is an opinion blog, I'll oblige.  Given the numbers, somebody's gotta step up and speak out.  What's that's obnoxious Liberal phrase - "speaking truth to power"? 

• I'm just dying to hear what the explanations are going to be for the Reading fiasco.  After all 87 or 120 are not just the "challenged" few.

• When is "more time" enough, and when is "more resources" enough?"
  

When is it time for results?  Is it time for "taxpayers pay for performance"?

If it were just a few, one could say "students".  A few more, "uninvolved parents" or "unable to enforce discipline".  Time to add another......

Posted by Skip at 09:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

UPDATE:        Here's their new website - www.gilfordrobotics.com

Also, three audio interviews that I did the night that I did when I took the below pictures

    Mike Andrews - Mentor

    Lucas Doyle - Programming

    Gordon Scott - Team Captain 

_______________________________________________________________ 

Got the chance to visit with the FIRST Robotics team again just before it was time to box up the completed robot for shipping to Manchester.  They'll get to get the kinks out this coming Friday and the competition will be on Saturday - we're hoping for a live update from the arena next week!

In the mean time, here's some pictures!

 Joysticks - left, right, sideways, arm up/down, and in/out

Checking the arm

Here's the fully loaded chassis

Completed robot from behind, right

 and from the front

Good luck! 

Posted by Skip at 09:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Just getting back from another biz trip - and the Citizen had this story about the Gilford High F.I.R.S.T. Robotics team.  If you haven't heard, this is the school competitive program that pits different school groups in building robots that will try to fulfill a mission.  This year, it is competing with two other groups as part of your team in racing around a closed loop circuit (think traditional race car), getting a ball from an on-high retainer, shephard it around the course, and put it back if you can.

This is the kind of stuff that makes me wish I was back in high school!!!

The parts are coming together. The Gilford FIRST Robotics team is making some headway on its latest robot, having already constructed the chassis that make their invention mobile.

"Good, bad and ugly," said Team Advisor Chris Drever, describing the progress of the group thus far.

Amy Drever explained that some setbacks have come because of the weather. When snow falls and school is canceled, so are the group's work sessions, which are held almost every night of the week.

This year's task requires that teams maneuver a 7.3 pound ball around a track. The restriction is that any robot cannot be more than five feet tall in its starting position.

To aid in their mission, the students have designed an extendible arm that will be able to direct the ball whichever way they choose. They also built their bot with Mecanum wheels that will allow the robot to move in any direction, which is expected to be handy in the competition.

"The design came through just the way I envisioned it," said Team Captain Lucas Doyle.

Doyle used a high-tech computer program called Solid Works to bring the pencil renderings of the robot to life.

"I spent three days just learning how to use the program," said Doyle.

Read more - this is an excellent program in that it takes some of what the kids learn in the classroom and applies it directly to a project!

In fact, Solid Works is similar to the common design software CAD. However this new program has become the cutting edge of the industry, with many who can use the program receiving top jobs in the market.

"It's close to last year. I would almost say we are a little ahead of where we were last year," said Billy Hunt, who is one of two home-schooled students that has been a part of the team.

"We can already maneuver the ball around without the top half of the robot," said Eli Cilley.

In addition to the functional aspects of the new robot, Doyle incorporated some of his past competition experience into this year's design. He made sure that each one of the major parts, like the wheels, are encased in their own framework. This way they can be easily attached to the whole frame and swapped out if one breaks or needs a repair.

"That way we only have to get around this one cell," said Cilley, noting that last year repairs involved turning the entire robot upside down. "Simplicity is key."

"I'm expecting great things from this robot," said Doyle.

For the group, many said the hardest part about building a robot is the whole trial and error part of it. Just last week the team was ironing out the driving capabilities of the robot.

When the construction is finished, hopefully sometime this week, the team will strap on a different kind of construction hat. It will then have to program the robot, feeding it commands, which can be just as labor-intensive as building it, if not more.

"We dial it in as they say," said Mike Anderson, the lead adviser to the team.

The 2008 FIRST competition has made a new rule, allowing each robot to have four preprogrammed actions. Doyle describes this as setting your remote control — whenever a button is pushed it does an action.

This aspect is modeled after the ability incorporated in the Mars Rovers, as they have a similar preprogrammed command structure.

"These kids are doing things that will help in the real world," said Drever.

With things well on the way, the FIRST Robotics program has drawn in many new participants, both male and female.

Freshman Mariah Smith said her interest was piqued when she was talking about it with some friends. Now she has discovered some talents that she never really knew she had.

"Mariah took to welding like a duck to water," said Drever.

Last year, students graduating who participated in the FIRST program were offered up to $58,000 in scholarships as a result of the skills they gained from the program.

More than that, Anderson said real world projects like FIRST are what will draw a new generation into the limitless possibilities of technology and the sciences.

 The 'Grok wishes them lots of luck and success at the competition in Manchester!

Posted by Skip at 02:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Doug and I will be putting up our "Thumbs Up" and "Thumbs Down" on the articles in the near future.  In the mean time, I just wanted to bring back to your attention the Citizen article done by Cutter Mitchell at the end of last month that discussed money and percentages.  Perhaps a table might be helpful:

                                                                                Percentage
                                         2008                      2007     Change

Town Budget                10,845,284              10,658,122         1.8%
Total Warrants                  432,483                1,750,100      -75.3%  (with $1M easement)
Total Town                11,277,767             12,408,222        -9.1%

SAU Operational            23,177,571              22,623,601         2.4%
Total Warrants                  569,000                  183,676      209.9%
SAU Totals                 23,746,571            22,807,277        4.1%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year over Year           35,024,338            35,215,499      -0.5%

Posted by Skip at 09:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

J. KEVIN HAYES
JOHN GOODHUE JR.
DENNIS CORRIGAN
JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN
DALE CHANNING EDDY

WRITE IN: __________________________

KAREN SAUNDERS
JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN

WRITE IN: __________________________

DENISE A. MORRISSETTE
JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN

WRITE IN: __________________________

JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN
PETER V. MILLHAM

WRITE IN: __________________________

NANCY MARCOUX
IRENE LACHANCE

WRITE IN: __________________________

WAYNE E. SNOW

WRITE IN: __________________________

ROBERT J. HENDERSON, JR.
“DON” SPEAR
JOHN J. MCDEVITT, JR.

WRITE IN: __________________________

WELDON BOSWORTH

WRITE IN: __________________________

TERRY J. STEWART
PHYLLIS CORRIGAN
SUSAN C. GREENE
SEAN PATRICK MURPHY
KEVIN ROY
ROBERT BRENT
JOSEPH F. HOFFMAN

WRITE IN: __________________________
WRITE IN: __________________________
WRITE IN: __________________________

Posted by Skip at 09:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford in the State of New Hampshire, qualified to vote in town affairs:

First Session

You are hereby notified to meet for the first session of the annual meeting, to be held at the Gilford High School Auditorium, Gilford, NH on the fourth day of February 2008 being Monday at seven o’clock  in the evening (7:00 pm).  The first (Deliberative) session will consist of explanation, discussion, and debate of each of the following warrant articles, and will afford those voters who are present the opportunity to propose, debate and adopt amendments to each warrant article, except those articles whose wording is prescribed by state law. 

You are also notified to meet for the second session of the annual town meeting, to elect town officers by official ballot and to vote by official ballot on the warrant articles as they may have been amended at the first session, to be held at the Gilford Middle School on the eleventh day of March 2008, being Tuesday, at seven o’clock in the forenoon (the polls are to be open at 7:00 am and may not close prior to 7:00 pm) to act upon the following:

Article 1:  To choose the necessary Town Officers for the following year.

Article 2:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend Section 8.4.8, Changeable Copy Signs, by adding to the existing Section 8.4.8 regulations regarding Electronic Changeable Copy Signs.  The proposed regulations limit the frequency at which messages are allowed to change; restrict hours of operation; and prohibit certain display methods including, but not limited to, flashing and image movement.

Article 3:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the Gilford Planning Board for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend subparagraph (a) of Section 5.2.1,  Island and Shore Frontage District, by increasing the minimum setback required from Lake Winnipesaukee, Saltmarsh Pond, Lily Pond, Poor Farm Brook, Meadow Brook, Jewett Brook, Gunstock River, or any other year_round brook, from forty (40) feet to fifty (50) feet.

Article 4:  Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by petition for the Gilford Zoning Ordinance as follows:

Amend the Official Zoning Map of the Town of Gilford by changing from the Resort Commercial (RC) Zone to the Single Family Residential (SFR) Zone the area along the southwesterly side of Route 11, a/k/a Lake Shore Road, generally between the Alton town line and Highland Drive.  

(The Planning Board does not recommend the adoption of this amendment.)

Article 5:  Shall the Town raise and appropriate as an operating budget, not including appropriations by special warrant articles and other appropriations voted separately, the amounts set forth on the budget posted with the warrant or as amended by vote of the first session, for the purposes set forth therein, totaling $10,825,284?  Should this article be defeated, the default budget shall be $10,874,772 which is the same as last year, with certain adjustments required by previous action of the Town or by law; or the governing body may hold one special meeting, in accordance with RSA 40:13, X and XVI, to take up the issue of a revised operating budget only.  NOTE: This operating budget warrant article does not include appropriations contained in ANY other warrant articles.  

Article 6:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of two hundred fourteen thousand dollars ($214,000) to purchase a new ambulance and authorize the withdrawal of one hundred ten thousand dollars ($110,000) from the Capital Reserve Fund created for that purpose.  The balance of one hundred four thousand dollars ($104,000) is to come from general taxation.

Article 7:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000) to be added to the Police Facility Capital Reserve Fund previously established.  This sum to come from undesignated fund balance and no amount to be raised from taxation. 

 
Article 8:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Bridge Replacement Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 9:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Highway Equipment Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 10:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000) to be added to the Ambulance Replacement Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 11:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of the maintenance of the Glendale Boat and Launch Ramp Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. 

Article 12:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of maintaining the Town’s Recreation Facilities and to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty two thousand dollars ($22,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend. 

Article 13:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) to be placed in the Sewer Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 14:  To see if the Town will vote to establish a Capital Reserve Fund under the provisions of RSA 35:1-c for the purpose of funding Water Supply Maintenance and to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to be placed in this fund and to name the Board of Selectmen as agents to expend.  

Article 15:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Compensated Absences Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 16:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) to be placed in the Building Repair Capital Reserve Fund. 

Article 17:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $110,000 for use by the Library Trustees at the new library.  Funding to be provided from the proceeds of the sale of land at 43 Potter Hill Road, parcel number 226-078.001.  This parcel was purchased in 2004 to build a new library.  This article is a one time appropriation and is contingent upon adequate proceeds from the sale of the land. 

Article 18:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $32,359 for the Youth Services Bureau.  (Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 19:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $23,500 for Community Health and Hospice,Inc. 

Article 20:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,400 for Child and Family Services. 

Article 21:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,345 for the Community Action Program.

(Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Article 23:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $8,749 for Genesis Behavioral Health. 

Article 24:  To see if the Town will vote to raise and appropriate $3,330 for the American Red Cross. 

Article 25:  To see if the Town will vote to pay the Town Clerk/Tax Collector an annual stipend of $57,952.  In addition the Town Clerk/Tax Collector shall be entitled to 95% of the premium for the town’s health insurance plan, 100% of the dental insurance premium, 100% of the short and long term disability plans, life insurance with a face value of 165% of the annual stipend (not to exceed $100,000).  Additionally, the Town will continue making contributions to the NH State Retirement System at the effective contribution rate (currently 8.74%).  Total value of package is $74,588.

Article 26:  To see if the taxpayers of the Town of Gilford will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to support the activities and facilities of the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable organization that operates a variety of sailing programs for residents of the Lakes Region.  These programs include: a Youth Sailing School; a Community Sailing Program for adults; and a soon to be established Adaptive Sailing Program for physically and mentally challenged children and adults, including wounded veterans returning from combat operations.  Programs are open to all Lakes Region residents regardless of their ability to pay.  (Submitted by Petition)

Article 27:  To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor:

Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.  The property tax has become unjust and unfair.  State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes.  We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes.  (Submitted by Petition)

Article 28:  To see if the Town will vote as per RSA 32:5 V-a to require that all votes by the Selectmen and Town Budget Committee relative to Town budget items or warrant articles be recorded votes and a numerical tally of any such vote be printed in the Town warrant next to the affected warrant article.  (Submitted by Petition)

Dated and signed on January 23, 2008 and ordered posted by the undersigned members of the Town of Gilford, New Hampshire Board of Selectmen.


______________________       ________________________       __________________________
Alice H. Boucher, Chairman       Connie Grant                           Gus Benavides   


We hereby certify that we gave notice to the inhabitants of the Town of Gilford to meet for the 2008 Deliberative Session and Official Balloting at the time and place indicated in this warrant, by posting an attested copy of this document on January 28, 2008 at the Gilford Middle School, High School, Town Hall, Library, and Department of Public Works.


______________________       ________________________       __________________________
Alice H. Boucher, Chairman       Connie Grant                           Gus Benavides   

Subscribed and sworn to this 23rd day of January 2008.

Posted by Skip at 06:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

From Dictionary.com:

Noun: something that obstructs or hinders progress...An obstacle is something,
material or nonmaterial, that stands in the way of literal or figurative progress

The BudComm was trying to move the Town forward by making it easier for taxpayers to review the major costs in Gilford - the Town and SAU employee salaries (and associated benefit costs).  It is the belief of the members that while the information is public, it requires a citizen to go down to the appropriate offices and file Right To Know requests. To many (if not most), this is a frightening proposition.   Given what School Board member Paul Blandford said in the local paper, many may believe (true or not) that there might be ramifications for requesting what is rightfully theirs.

However, we know that the Selectmen turned down the request with only Gus Benevides voting it make it easier and less stressful for taxpayers to get that information. In this week's Steamer, I learned a couple more details: :

Benavides said that the town has to balance the needs of the employees and the needs of the taxpayers. Benavides was concerned that it would have a negative impact on the taxpayers but went on to say that Gilford is "of the people, by the people, and the people have a right to know."

As for town employees, it is expected that everything they do will be made public, Benavides said.

Connie Grant and Alice Boucher voted not to do so.  Connie was quoted as saying:

Grant said she was concerned it was just too much at one time for her to be comfortable with.

"You sit in the (selectmen) office and all the town reports are there," said Grant. "This is a big step and I don't want to be the three that change history."

Gee, an impediment to make progress on behalf of the taxpayers...an unwillingness to push forward?

Yet, what was it that Connie called the BudComm?  Oh yeah...

I had already called the question which, by the informal rules that Dick had allowed and used all year should have resulted in a vote taken rather than a continuing discussion.  However, Dick allowed Connie to address the members and she did say (as the above video snippet shows):

"I can't believe that you [the BudComm members] will be an obstacle rather than part of that success" 

[implying to me "everyone else is behind this, why are you all being stubborn - just go along, get along with us, and approve this thing"]

Doug took grief (and I am sorry that I did not speak up, especially when I was the one that had called the question) when he realized that the BudComm was being put down and tried to bring to Dick's attention during her statement that I had called the question in order to stop the insulting of the BudComm earler decision.  And yes, my philosophy was to give the taxpayer's money BACK to the taxpayers.  That is an obstacle?  I doubt very much that the taxpayers will see it that way.  After all, it at least allows them to control their own money and not us, their elected officials. 

While we are elected and have responsibilities, it should always be uppermost that it is not OUR money, it is not the Town's or SAU's money, it is the taxpayers money.  In the case of a "tie" and where possible, let the taxpayers vote their own interest and their wallets - we (elected and appointed officials and employees) exist solely for the benefit of the taxpayers.  Never should we be of a mindset that we know better than they do what they want to do with their money regardless of how good, how important, or how much progress we believe would be done with their money.

Now, change the date, the time, and the Board under the microscope: 

Given that the Selectmen refuse to change their meeting time (only Gus has made the attempt to change the Selectmen meeting time), I or any other person having to work regular business hours, certainly do not have the same opportunity to try to persuade the Selectmen to change their decisions.

 Taxpayers access Salary Info - not easier

Obstacle. 

I guess it all depends on what the issue is, who, the stance, and as to whether or not the word can be used, eh? 

Pot, Kettle, Black.

Posted by Skip at 09:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

After the two Public Session (one each for the Town and the SAU), the Budget Committee's mandate is to review what they heard from the public.  It is the last time that the BudComm has to alter the budget or to change it's Recommendations on those budgets or on the associated Warrant Articles. 

And so the debates began again. 

First up was the Library, the TC/TC followed by the NGOs and then the FIRST Robotics and finally sending a letter to the Selectmen requesting the Town Salaries be published in the Town Report.

Margo made the motion to reconsider. To no one's surprise, the Library Director's husband lead the charge to have the BudComm change from Not Recommended to Recommended.  Doug, Terry, and I made arguments against the change.  Selectman Grant was recognized by Dick  With Bob Brent away on vacation and Bill Phillips changing his vote, the vote to change to Recommend was a tie.  Dick, as chair, cast his vote to give taxpayer money away to the Library.

Next was a discussion of the Town Clerk / Tax Collector.  With the way it was done, there was no recommendation to give other than we asked that the salary/stipend/renumeration (whatever the right legal term is) and its burden cost be split out in the budget so it can be more easily tracked.

Last was the NGOs.  Dale's attempt  to say that we did not do any analysis on the amounts so we should send a letter out to the taxpayers was slapped down by Dick.  Once again,  it was a  "we didn't do the analysis vs  local property taxes should not be used  to fund  charities" decision. The vote was against sending out the letter.

Posted by Skip at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I missed a couple of the vids that I captured, and just noticed that I neglected to put up the video of the Budget Committee's Public Session for the Town Budget.  Dick Hickock, Chair, led the review and walked through the entire budget.  There were some discussions, with some discussion about the use of warrant articles, the funding of Outside Agencies, and again, an impassioned set of pleas from the Library Trustees for us to change our Not Recommended on the Library Warrant (to give the proceeds of the sale of the original land for the new library purchased by taxpayers).

Posted by Skip at 08:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)