GilfordGrok

Just got off the phone with Denise Morrissette (Town Clerk) to see what the election lineups are going to be on the Town side:

• Selectmen:
• John O'Brian
• Chan Eddy
• Joe Hoffman

• Budget Committee:
• Dick Hickock (Incumbent and current Chair),
• David "Skip" Murphy (Incumbent, yes, that would be me!)
• Joe Hoffman
• Phyllis Corrigan (used to be on the BudComm)
• Richard Young (He of "Recession Sanctuary" fame when speaking of the Library; currently on the BudComm as the Gunstock Water District appointee)
• Mark Correy
• Jean Lavin

Also called over to the SAU around 4:30PM and had this:

• School Board:  
  
• Deb Zimmerman
• Sue Allan (Incumbent and current Chair)
• Kurt Weber   (Incumbent)

• Treasurer:   Paul Simeneau

• Moderator: John Cameron

• Clerk:  Kim Verracio

Apologies if I have mangled and spelling of names!

Posted by Skip at 05:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To qualify the above title, I'm referring to the old library site that was supposed to be the site of the new library until the Library Trustees decided to buy a new site for the new library.  Anyways, the Selectmen have submitted a Warrant to sell that land again.

ARTICLE 33.        To see if the Town will vote to authorize the Board of Selectmen to convey to Gilford Village Knolls, Inc., a 3.19 (+/-) acre parcel of land situated at 43 Potter Hill Road and more particularly referenced at Tax Map 226, Lot 78-1; under such terms and conditions as the Selectmen may deem to be in the best interest of the Town; provided that the sale price shall not be less than the original purchase price of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).

There will be some that will say "hey, Skip, the Trustees NEED that money to pay back the line of credit they took out!".  Well, sorry, but they made a realy bad decision and it is not up to the taxpayers to bail them out. 

Ask yourself - the current BAILOUT at the national level is to prop up those people, companies, and states that refused to live within their means?  Do we want to replicate that (albeit at the nano-level) that philosophy?

$400,000 is a lot of money that the Trustees arranged to use - far more than $150,00 asking price of the lot.  While the intention may have been for the good of the building, the Trustees showed that they were being more than a little anxious to finish the project - to the detriment of their finances.  They made a bad decision.

In short, they counted their chickens before they even had the eggs.

From a practical standpoint, it is doubtful that the Village Knolls folks will be able to raise the funds / get a loan for the $150K in today's environment as the value of the land has most likely fallen well below the price.  That said, I would not want to see a long term P&S set up between the Town and the VK folks JUST in case an interested buyer does come along that would be willing to pay the price.

Posted by Skip at 10:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are going to be four Petition Warrant articles concerning the mandating town taxpayers to give charity to professional charitable organizations:

• Article 26 - Laconia area of Community Action Program (you know, the folks that run the two Winnie buses that run around town, pretty much empty all the time?) for $8,762
  
• Article 27 - Youth Services Bureau for $26,000
• Article 28 - Genesis for $9,402.89
• Article 29 - New Beginnings for $2,000
  

I urge all to vote these down - but contribute personally to these if you so feel led.

My problem, and has been since I learned of this practice of local government supporting these organizations.  In the case of CAP, this money won't even be going to aid people who need it - it is to pay admin costs.  No one will lose out on help that might be needed.

NOTE: The CAP warrant describes the activities of how CAP helps - it is disingenous as written as we on the BudComm were told this money was for OFFICE EXPENSES.

I believe in limited government that then allows individuals the freedom to choose what they wish to support, or not.  When all of the "outside agencies" were inside the budget (forcing us all to vote up or down on the entire budget), they were "hidden" from view.  Now that they are presented in warrant form (except for the two this year that are in the budget BECAUSE of the warrant voting last year), they have the visibility they should have.

You may support these organizations and decide to vote for the warrants.  In doing so, you help to increase your own taxes.  However, this is also a case to ask yourself - am I being a friend to my neighbors, am I being compassionate to my friends in town, by forcing them to pay extra in their taxes at the same time just because I like this organization?  What if they don't?  Am I being the one that is helping to tip that elderly couple's finances just enough such that property taxes just will be enough to push them over the edge?  Who am I to take that freedom away from others to make that choice individually?

Is that the right thing to do?  Or is the better thing to do is to personally canvas those same people and see if they would voluntarily contribute to these organizations?

Remember, these organizations, no matter their arguments otherwise (for they want you to believe that they ARE part of government even as they are not accountable TO that government), receive lots of your tax money already at the County, State, and Federal levels.

I personally get tired of hearing the heads of these organizations that "we have to show that we have community support in order to get other grants".  When the NGOs were buried within the budget, what that actually translated to in reality is "we have to persuade a small number of politicians (2 Selectmen and 7 BudComm) members to not kick us out of the budget."

So tell me, is that really "community support"?  Nine people?  Or do the harder (but truer) work to actively seek those in the community to voluntarily contribute?

I plan on voting "NO" on these warrants.  The BudComm decided against recommending them all.   In my opinion, there is just too much duplication of services amongst all of the NGOs to support these folks with my tax dollars...

...and I do not want to force you to shell out your precious dollars during economic time either.

I want you to have the freedom, the liberty, of choosing with your own dollars whether to support them personally (and not raise your taxes).

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

 Over the course of my blog postings on this subject I have received comments from a number of people who I respect. Some respectfully agree to disagree and others are in complete agreement. I have softened my rhetoric on the issue regarding the GES cuts because I’ve come to learn a few things along the way. Let me first issue the disclaimer and even add one more.

1)      I do not speak for the Budget committee. The opinions expressed here are mine and mine alone.

2)      No one else speaks for me. The opinions expressed here by others are theirs and not mine.

I’ve come to learn that the GES issue, like many teacher/parent issues, is very emotional based. There always seems to be a lot more dynamics at play when it comes to public education. There are those that prey on these emotions and ratchet up the rhetoric. Maybe this is true for both sides of the issue. However in this case a few teachers are drafting parents to make their case. Unfortunately, in doing so, they omit the reality of the supportive facts in this situation. I DO NOT believe that the majority of the concerned are taking it to the extreme. It is my hope that the majority of the concerned will see that the conclusions of the School board are based on sound facts and DO NOT jeopardize the children. I actually agree with a few reasoned statements coming from concerned citizens of Gilford. In the end, it is really quite simple.

With the proposed reduction in staff, the Children’s needs will be taken care of better than they have in the last five years. There is absolutely NO denying this. We are nearing a point that for every adult working in the school on behalf of the children’s needs, there are only 10 – 12 students. In the past, the children were only taken care of by 1 adult for every 15 – 17 students. A guidance councilor has 27% less students to care for than before. HOW CAN WE NOT DO A BETTER JOB???? With the proposed cuts, we have more resources than ever before to deal with our more needy children. This is the disconnect that frustrates me. However, when the parents absorb the reality of the situation, I believe they will set aside the rhetoric and be ecstatic that their children have never seen such an unprecedented level of care.

The only issue that could possibly resonate in this proposal is whether or not the Life Science program should continue as a course. I believe the core concept of this course is important. When I discussed this issue with my family, someone asked “don’t these children have mothers?” I explained that the educators claim that the parents of Gilford aren’t capable of teaching their children the basic skills of life. If that is true then I believe that the educators, Administrators, School Board and SAU can figure out how to provide these skills without adding staff; especially with the wealth of resources that will remain after these cuts. It's obvious that some of this individuals do not like the proposed solution. Fine, then come up with an alternative solution that meets the chalenge.  

I think the community as a whole would be far better off if there was more emphasis on solving the problem with the resources available. There is absolutely no reason these dedicated and intelligent professionals can’t come up with a good solution for all if they would only set aside their person agendas and work toward that goal.

If the money is restored during the Deliberative session, I will not support the budget as a whole or any Warrant Article that adds money (yes that includes the teacher’s contract). I will work my hardest to convince the citizens of Gilford to vote NO on all items that add money to the budget. I will do the same if the Municipal budget is amended, by the library advocates as well.

I believe that it won’t be a difficult task to convince people to vote NO in an economy that is getting worse by the second! It’s unfortunate that the greed of a few might penalize the hard work and sacrifice of the majority.

It's important that the people come out to the Deliberative sessions and support the budget as recommended by your Budget Committee!

Posted by Terry S. at 11:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So, what does that title mean? Simply, it seems to be that all one has to say "It's for the children" and all logic is to be thrown out to the playground.  That one simple phrase covers all ills and reasoning (hey, stoopid, stop arguing because it's for the kiddies, you heartless, worthless piece of humanity!) 

Co-joined with that phrase is that practioners within the Educational class seem to have little regard for parents; THEY should have the preeminence over parents (the "we know better" syndrome") in raising society's children (why else the push for universal Pre-K starting at age 3?).  Additionally, that philosophy seemingly (to me) is morphing into a philosophy of "well, WE have to take care of the kids because the Parents aren't there / don't care to our particular standards to what WE expect they should be doing for their kids. 

Which gives rise to that phrase "The enrollments may be down, but the needs are up". That is an example, uttered under the breath by one of the Gilford Teacher Union honchos at last year's SAU Deliberative Session.  Problem is, she whispered it so loud and with such vehemence that it was heard at a much greater distance than what she probably realized (or wanted).  To me, and a lot of other raised eyebrows around me, it was a signature moment - it cried out "how DARE you think of cutting or not adding to the budget; "ITS FOR THE CHILDREN!"  It is THE attempt to demonize anyone that will not give them the money they want (hmmm, am I starting to sound like Terry?).

Want another example?  Laconia Daily Sun, Jan 12, pg 11.  The speaker is Joe Wernig, Gilford resident and teacher in Belmont speaking about the Home-ec position that is not going to be filled with the retirement of Linda Wright:

My concern is for the kids who don't have the parental involvement.

"Having a teacher dedicated to the program, he said, 'gives them someone else to relate to, because not everyone goes home to a parent."

My beef?  I'm getting real annoyed with the education class" that believes that they are the ones who are responsible for our children and that parents are uncaring dolts."   As this discussion about the SAU budget continues, I hear or see this so often ("well, what about the kids that...."), I truly begin to wonder if there are any caring parents in town and then I realize that the vast majority of parents are good parents and that this is just a rhetorical argument (or do some teachers really believe this nonsense?).

I heard this same type of rhetoric from a number of teachers at last Thursday's meeting at the GES Library.  What was especially galling to hear from our school employees, in protestation of the small reduction in the guidance counselor position, was along the lines of:

"With the Recession, the parents are stressed out so we have to take care of the kids when they come to school"

You know, the impression you get is that half the town's parents are crazed with fear over money and that WE CANNOT CUT ANYTHING having to do with the children. If we do, these kids are DOOMED, I tell you, simply DOOMED! 

To be honest, it isn't just from what I see or hear in Town. I follow a number of EdBlogs everyday and see this attitude at those places as well. Look, I realize that the number one factor in a child's success in school is involved parents, and they should be involved. Let's just say I had "difficult" sons, I had to be involved.  Even at one of the EdBlogs that I like a lot, I see this attitude:

Let parents ‘be the change’

Barack Obama’s “be the change” idea “could transform the education policy debate,” writes Flypaper.  It’s assumed many parents won’t raise their children responsibly so schools must step in.

Perhaps we’ll never reach “100 percent parental responsibility,” just like we’ll never reach “100 percent proficiency” in reading and math. But maybe, just maybe, we could do dramatically better than we are today in getting parents to show up for their job as their child’s first and most important teacher.

Question - who is working for who here (oh yeah, I already answered that)? Where is the respect to those that employ those that are saying this (and yes, teachers are employees).  I can understand, perhaps, to a small degree in trying to get more parental involvement. 

What can schools do to encourage parental responsibility?

I think schools should tell parents what they school wants them to do, such as limit TV and video time on school nights, set aside time for homework and reading, enforce a sensible bed time, serve a low-sugar breakfast, get them to school on time, whatever else is doable even by poorly educated parents.

I’d send home DVDs (or links to YouTube videos) on how to teach manners and self-control to children. How should kids handle conflict at school? Show examples.  Another DVD could show how to read aloud with a child, perhaps how to discuss a TV show with a child. Or how to help your child get organized to do homework, even if you can’t help with the homework.

Asking is nice.  Offering material is great. But to outright believe and say "parents won't raise their children responsibly so the schools must step in"? 

Could that not be a definition of hubris?  Stepping into a situation where one was not invited and trying to take over (or, at least holding that attitude)?

A similar problem seems to be when schools start to worm their ways into the students lives when outside of school and usurping the traditional roles of parents.  In my eyes (and others), the kids are the parents and the parents' responsibility.  Even if they are not "performing" to the Educational class's standards. They are the schools' responsibility, in the role of in loco parentis, only during school hours.

This slow reach of the Nanny State is probably the best reason I will fight, best I can, the idea of Universal Pre-K - why in God's green earth do I want the State to have the ability to have more influence over my child than I do?

And of course, my I remind you all of this little stunt by a Gilford Teacher?

Posted by Skip at 10:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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

Before you read this, go here first, and then come back.

Look, things change over time.  No matter how much we may not wish it to, life changes circumstances and new decisions have to be made to adjust. 

Life changed:

• Enrollment has dropped 25% at GES over the last few years
• SAU Enrollment overall is dropping, again, over the last few years
  
• Linda Wright made a decision to retire
• Budget Committee members (especially me!) have been questioning the level of staffing the last three years, especially in the area of overhead costing (and my definition of overhead labor is coming from a mfg background of "if you ain't touching/manipulating the material that is actually making the product out on the shop floor, you are overhead - which includes the CEO, CFO, R&D, Sales, and Mrktng!)
  

I applaud Linda Wright for developing an award winning program - by all means and recountings, she deserves all the accolades she has received.  But she is retiring.

Programs within government have a habit of, once started, never seem to go away.  Now, I'm not suggesting that the program go away - I'm not and the State law will not allow anyways.  But that doesn't mean that new ways of meeting standards should never be tried.  Even if the State requires certain material to be taught, it does not require "status quo" always remain.

The problem is that saying "it is for the children" is not a sufficient answer.  That emotional answer to keep budgets higher when all other standards (State standards, Association standards, School Board standards) are still met, is way overused in my opinion.  It over emphasizes emotional versus a reasoned approach (for emotional appeals often seem to trump logic - which is why they are often by those that want their way).

I expect that the needs of the kids, according to all the standards mentioned above, be met.  I do not expect that the same methodology to do so be used forever and ever because "we've always done it that way before" when other conditions are changing as well.

Gilford spends a LOT of money per student - way more than the State average.  Sometimes, the right thing to do is not say "what about the children", but sometimes ask 'what about the taxpayer?".  Hitting the standard is good; we here in Gilford do MORE than hit legislated standards and certainly spend more than most.

I will ask "how about helping the taxpayer for a change?"  After all, many of the taxpayers would be able to use that money to do something extra for......their kids.

Bottomline: despite the kvetching I heard coming from behind me during almost the entire time at last Thursday's meeting (rude, ladies, very rude - is that the kind of manners you are teaching our kids?  And you DO know who you are!), I support the School Board and Dr. DeMinico in their decision to carry on the program but in a different way than for the last 30 odd years.

Posted by Skip at 09:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Hmm, things seem have changed, eh?

Citizen: 1/6/09

School Board members and the selectmen discussed the possibility of relocating the SAU offices that currently are in the Gilford Town Hall basement. The School Board has budgeted $74,000 for the upcoming year to move the offices.

Last year, the SAU had to temporarily move to a section of the elementary school while repairs were being done to the ceiling of the SAU offices.

"The best-case scenario would be to have a place before Town Meeting in March," Town Administrator Scott Dunn said. "We're keeping in mind the best interest of the school district. We are not throwing anyone out."

Citizen: 1/15/09

Selectmen have decided to hold off on recommending the renewal of the SAU lease agreement with the town until after March's Town Meeting. The board felt that there is too much going on right now and they felt that a few items on the ballot need to be voted on before proceeding with the lease.

1/22/09, School Board meeting at GES concerning the budget and its impact on staffing and locations (which I attended)

paraphrased: "we got a letter today saying that the lease for the SAU is not going to be renewed..."

Well, THAT progression didn't take long, did it? I think that Joe Wernig et al are going to have their knickers all in a knot over this one.

The problem is that space on the municipal side IS a big problem - I support the moving of the heavy files / Planning Dept down to the lowest level so that we don't have the same problem of the roof starting to crack (which forced a temp move of the SAU) return anytime soon.  Which does leave the SAU in a bit of a bind.

Last year, Joe was one of the most vocal protesters against the warrant that would have enabled the SAU offices to move to the Elementary school - it seemed that a lot of the teachers there did not want their management in the building either.  Lots of reasons were actually given, but my personal belief still remains - it seems that the staff wanted to tell the management what was going to happen, and when that happened, people got riled up 

Sidebar: hmm, sounds familiar!  Am I starting to sound like Terry?  Good - I hope I am.  Frankly, I am in complete agreement with Terry with his current series on the School side of the budget process.  We pay REALLY GOOD bucks for Management to manage - their staff, while being allowed input (and from Thursday nite's meeting, certainly seems that they have been given that opportunity - and more!)

Look, the SAU needs to move.  I also believe that the SAU should move to the "educational" campus and use the now available space within GES - either up or down, although I'm betting that the first floor will be better for ADA compliance (no elevator will be needed). NO, the SAU should not move to the old library building (I still think it should go back to the heirs and [ha!] I still want my chainsaw out of that race car!).

And NO, the SAU should not be moved to other quarters outside what is already owned by the Town.  While it sounds good in theory, I don't want to extra expense. Sure, there is a line item to pay "rent" to the Town, so some might say "hey, it's already budgeted!".

OK, call me cheap - right now, looking upward as a taxpayer supporting both the SAU and the Town, the money collected from me via the school tax is merely an accounting action - it goes right to the town and (every so slightly) lowers the tax I pay on that side of the ledger. Basically, it stays within the system. Moving the SAU to Village West (as was mentioned during the meeting) means an outflow of real money.

And for those of you who are complaining that "hey, we rejected the Warrant last year, and this year the budgeted cost is higher!".  Well, decisions have consequences, and those that did not want that Article to pass are now having all of us pay the piper even more.  Decisions have consequences, and hindsight now says you made the wrong one in stirring up a no vote.

I echo Doug's position and actually demand more - what IS the official teachers' union stance on this?  Are they willing to make it public?

OFFER: I'm offering an invite for the teachers' union leadership to come on Meet The New Press and layout, publicly, their stance on the SAU move.  And the SAU Budget!  And the wind down of the staffing levels!

For the record - right NOW, I support the SAU move.  And the SAU Budget. And the staffing decline. And the CBA for the teachers.

For right now.

I do not speak for the Budget Committee or the other members.  I will say that I know what my vote for Recommending / Not Recommending will be after the SAU Deliberative Session if changes are made to the SAU Budget relative to the SAU move or the staffing cuts other than what the Budget Committee has done.

But more later...

Posted by Skip at 08:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Well, there's lots of places to start.  Why not with the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) for the Police union?  They are represented by Teamsters as Local 633, ... 

Sidenote: Teamsters?  The Teamsters?  The same union that I believe is still under Federal watch mode for, shall we say, "hijinks"?  I still have a hard time, not with the unionization, but with who the police chose to represent them...the analogy that keeps running through my mind now is that of Timothy Geithner, Obama's choice to be Treasury Secretary, claiming his tax problems were because he couldn't run TurboTax right.  This is the mastermind that is supposed to know guide our country's finances out of the current decline?  If you and I claimed that same reasoning, we sure wouldn't be sitting in the White House on a regular basis with the President...we'd be in the Big House on a full time basis with the Warden...the Teamsters?...sigh....

...come to an agreement with the Town, we get to vote on their Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).  For the most part, I have no real problems with the contract as presented to us by the Selectmen and Town Administration.  In fact, I voted for it - in fact, it was a 9-0 vote on the BudComm.

Here's my only problem with the CBA - it has been structured in such a way that the "loss of a year's raise" has been obviated.  In other words, even though the union leadership could not come to a reasonable accomodation last year, the union members are now being held blameless - once again, taxpayers have to make up the difference.  My stance is still that if you want to "live by the union, die by the union"; taxpayers should not be on the hook economically because the union bargaineers could not complete the deal.

Yet another Sidebar: when the Warrant Articles to appear before the townfolk at the Deliberative Sessions become "valid", I'll post them up here.

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

This past Saturday on MTNP radio, Doug unloaded on the Selectmen, questioning what exactly they based their original "yes" vote on the ridiculously expensive $500K-plus energy retrofit upon, and the teachers that continue to push-- through the use of breathless, weepy mothers-- for the restoration of the assistant principal & guidance counselor positions [and money]. Even though he originally voted "yes" on the contract while on the budget committee, it was based on the context of a reduced budget. Given that the teachers remain unwilling to compromise, or take a public stand as a union supporting the school board and administration, well... just listen:

No Compromise, NO CONTRACT! End of discussion. Doug doesn't care if this isn't EVERY teacher-- it's up to their union comrades to set their misguided brethren straight. In the absence of such reasonability and level-headedness, there is no reason to say yes to such a generous contract...

Posted by Doug at 05:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I didn’t want to disappoint those of you who are following the attempts to restore the budget and positions at the EMS. Please allow me to get a few disclaimers out of the way.

I’M NOT WRITING FOR THE BUDGET COMMITTEE. The opinions expressed in this post are mine and mine alone. Furthermore, for those of you not familiar with what blogs are about. Think of this as kind of a “South Park” like atmosphere that’s just like the completely politically incorrect cartoon. On the Grok I do not discriminate. Everyone I believe to be ridiculous gets an equal opportunity spanking. Anyone is welcome to give it back to me directly in writing on this blog. That’s why there is a comment section. Feel free to give yourself a pen name if you need immunity. That’s perfectly fine with me. I enjoy the debate. I also want to make it perfectly clear that this blog is the only place that I share most blunt opinions. By the way, I can also use terrible grammar and sentence structure here too. (The owners of this blog site spank me for that all the time!)

Anything I say or write in the more public domain is generally more tempered, respectful and polite. Why not here you ask? The public domain is too fluffy and watered down. It’s also not necessarily real. People often engage in the “Brave New World” theory in the public domain. That theory states that if  a lie is stated enough times it becomes the truth. Point in case; last year’s Warrant Article on moving the SAU failed on the basis of a relatively false premise that was repeated and repeated. Here, in the blogosphere, we can strip away the rhetoric and get opinions from other perspectives that shine a truly accurate version of the situation. Yes people, this is were I seek the truth and learn. Your comments back to me mean more here than most anywhere.

The meeting that took place last night at the EMS library needs to be put into perspective. I’ve decided I’d attempt to not be my usual sarcastic self on this post. Call me a softy but I think the facts are going to speak for themselves without the sarcasm. I want you all to know that this is going to be less entertaining for my usual readers.

Let’s begin by stating that the news reports of last night’s event slightly exaggerated the size of the meeting. It doesn’t take many folks to fill the EMS library. I counted between 50 -60 people. After discounting the elected officials, administrators, teachers and media people, I believe there were maybe 20 concerned parents (that were not also teachers). Before anyone goes ballistic, I’m going to address the concerned teachers that are also parents in a minute. I knew one of the “parents” and asked what brought them to the meeting. The answer; (no surprise here) a teacher called to urge them to attend. Okay, back to the concerns of all. I get it; everyone present is passionately concerned for the students and their own children. What I don’t get is the fact that NO explanation seems to satisfy the concern. I’ve seen this material many times and have yet to hear a question that the School Board and SAU haven’t answered adequately.

Question 1 (a repeated question)

Our children today need more help than any time previous. How will we give them the help they need with discipline, guidance etc.. if we make these cuts? If what we’re doing is working so well then why cut?

Okay, even if you believe that our children today are somehow needier than ever before then the answer to this problem has been answered and answered again. I noticed many not hearing the answer when it was repeated several times. Here it is again; you are correct, things have been working great in the past. We had a guidance ratio of 330 students to 1 guidance person. No one in the room disputed that things worked well under that scenario. With these cuts we will still enjoy a ratio of 240 students to 1. How can this be bad? How is this going to be worse? This is still a massive improvement no matter how you phrase it.

Question #2

What if the population increases?

I was impressed from the very beginning that the SAU plan to move into the EMS included provisions to restore the class rooms if that need arises in the future. Once again, it didn’t seem like anyone was interested in the answer.

I would like to address the budgeting process. This too was largely ignored.

1)      There are at least three opportunities to shape a budget prior to public hearing. Gilford more than any other town, welcomes public input.

2)      The School Board crafts this budget in public session – Public welcome

3)      The Budget Committee is presented the budget and assigns to sub committee to review – Public welcome

4)      The Budget committee reviews EMS budget and subcommittee findings – Public welcome.

5)      Public Hearing – School board and BudCom review after public comment – Public welcome

There was not one word of public dissention until the very end of this process. NOT ONE!!!!

I’m sure the minutes would reveal that I did ask about the rumors of dissention. I also did ask about the petition. I was assured that there was minimal concern however the plan was acceptable to the majority of teachers and parents. Given the nature of the budgeting process, I’d agree with the School Boards assessment of that statement.

What occurred last night was no different than any other meeting I’ve attended. Be it the School Board, Select Board, BudCom or any other subcommittee, the attendees of the meeting were a confined group of individuals lobbying for their portion of the budget. I still believe that this group is motivated by a group of teachers. I’ve come to believe their concern is for the students and children but they are still pushing parents to share their concern. I also believe they are concerned about their working environment, it’s only natural. I also believe that few teachers who spoke believe that there should NEVER be reductions, not so much for the children but for job preservation. All these elements are in play.

There are roughly 1600 regular voters, slightly over 100 teachers and hundreds of concerned parents. One could conclude the absence of the majority speaking against these cuts is evidence that the proposed budget makes sense.

I think most people would like to see the staff work with the School board & SAU to continue the Life Sciences Program without staff or budget increases. If it’s that important, a solution can be found to accomplish that goal without adding staff or money to the budget.

Posted by Terry S. at 11:17 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Jack Stephenson makes more good points. It's all about cost versus return.

To Gilford voters, Selectmen, and Police Facility Committee (FPC), 1-21-09.

I’ve been searching for information to justify using geothermal energy here in Gilford with the coldest ground in the USA. Can’t find any. The best data I can find says that if the ground water is at 45 deg F then the heat you get is only the heat of electrical energy you put into the pumps, and the ground water in Gilford is 40 deg F or less. It is thus easy to understand that our Selectmen rejected geothermal heat for the Town Hall when shown that just the interest on the investment to install it was double the cost of current oil heat.

How then is it possible that the FPC decided to use geothermal heating, when their big goal was to reduce costs? They have not shown us any data to justify that outrageously high cost. The new library has geothermal heating, and the only information we’ve gotten so far is that it is difficult to regulate. Absolutely nothing about cost versus return.

The Town hall uses hot water heating to radiators, the healthiest heating system, since it avoids blowing pollutants, dust, pollen, mold spores, etc thru the facility. The FPC shows using expensive heat exchangers, blowers, and steel ducting to distribute the heat. Where is the economic justification? Just "business as usual, damn the cost, full speed ahead"?

More amazing is the use of just one well, and return cold water going back side by side with the pipe for ground water (thus chilling it), and then back into same well. Seems like sci-fi magic. For less than 2% of the cost for geothermal installation they could insulate enough so they could heat for 5% of the geothermal operating cost!

Jack

Posted by Doug at 06:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

After last week's excitement, I think it’s wise to move to another area of the town’s budget. Keep in mind we still have Deliberative sessions coming up and a Forum at the GES on the staff cuts. I am going to attempt to attend both events to see where it goes.

I couldn’t help but notice the number problems popping up in communities that are living under a “tax cap”. This would include our neighboring city of Laconia who is signaling of budget trouble in covering salary increases. Given the fact that the tax cap is based on inflationary figures and revenues, I’d say those figures suggest the committed raises will be in jeopardy. One might conclude that the formula used to derive a “tax cap” reflects much of what we’re seeing in our economy. This might explain why the private sector is forced to lay workers off, issue no raises and stop contributing matching dollars to retirement programs. Shouldn’t these things be telling us something? Is it right for government to continue on as though nothing is wrong?

Merrill Fay of Fay’s Boat Yard, spoke at the last Public Hearing and suggested that the town’s leaders are living in a “bubble”. The town’s business goes on as though times haven’t changed. Do you think he’s right? I do!

Meanwhile, on the municipal side of the budget, the beat goes on. There were essentially three issues in debate on the municipal budget.

1)      Supervisors of the check list – If it weren’t for the fact that these folks are elected officials, I’d completely agree with them. There also seems to be misunderstanding on this issue. As I recall, the BudCom voted to approve the original number that was in the very first budget. After the BudCom voted for the original figure, Selectman Hayes said there was a meeting with the Supervisors to discuss their request. He told the Budcom that if anything changed as a result of the meeting then it would be brought back to the Committee. It was later brought back to the committee with a higher dollar amount by the Board of Selectmen twice and rejected. There seems to be some misunderstanding that the BudCom changed this number lower. I believe the meeting minutes would show this not to be the case.

2)      Library – This one is an OUTRAGE! If we are to believe that politics is a process of give and take and compromise is the spice of life then this issue should never have come back up. The BudCom meeting on the library budget was ugly but that happens when a lone department comes to the table with double the percent increase over all the other departments (with the exception of budgets that had large fuel requirements.) After much debate from cutting a very large amount, to add bits and pieces back in, it was settled at about a 4.5% increase from last year. Apparently this “compromise” wasn’t satisfactory for the Library. They wanted it ALL! So, they came up with a colorful way to present it to the Selectmen and the Public Hearing. They made the claim that “if you remove the Salary increases then the requested money would level fund the operating expenses from last year.” WOW!!!!! This is really disingenuous because the public wouldn’t know that the library added a part time staff member unless they attended all the meetings. A part time staff member they snuck in, between budget cycles. The BudCom reluctantly agreed that the increase in circulation justified the part time employee and suggested that the increase in labor needed to be off set with some reductions in other spending. How the Selectmen bought into this pretzel logic of omitting the salary increase to come up with a level funded number, is beyond imagination. Fortunately the BudCom saw the request for what it was and voted down the added amount. Unfortunately, I’ll be largely misunderstood on this issue because I understand the need for a community library, I just don’t believe it has to grow without limits. Given the amount of total responsibilities to provide essential services, it is only prudent that tax payers should only have to fund a reasonable amount for one particular non essential service. The volume of people that use the library has no bearing on the growth of the budget beyond standard inflationary amounts.    

3)      Outside Agencies – This issue is like a bad penny that just will not go away. The good news is that these requests remain as Warrant Articles to be decided by voters. I have given some lengthy speeches about my findings on this subject. Yes, I spent plenty of time researching the need for this money. I discovered the MYTH, that our town would have to pay a lot more money if these agencies weren’t around to provide the service for us. First let’s clarify that these agencies do great things. There is NO DISPUTING THIS. Putting the emotional hysteria aside, one must realize that these agencies put themselves in the business of obtaining grants that are dispersed to people who qualify for the benefit. They are required, by law, to provide that service to anyone that qualifies. They are the mechanism that the State of NH uses to disperse Federal and State money for Social programs. Gilford residents pay at the County, State, and Federal level as well as their electric bill for some programs and their mortgage for others. In my opinion, this cottage industry has gotten completely out of control. At this point, I believe, the State could create the biggest bloated government agency and it wouldn’t even come close to the money that flows through the non profit agencies cottage industry. None of which can be questioned by the tax payers that fund it!! We need to get these agencies off the local pay roll FOREVER! I hoped the Selectmen would have listened to the voters last year but they did not. They either caved in politically or they simply chose to ignore the majority of voters. The BudCom listened to the voters and did NOT recommend any Warrant Articles for outside agencies. The two outside agencies that passed by the majority of voters last year were funded in the operating budget. It should be noted that BudCom members listened to the voters and even those opposed to outside agencies still voted for the two agencies that were approved by the voters.     

I wonder about the mood of the voters this year. Many fear for their jobs, not seeing raises and seeing no contributions to their retirement funds. In the beginning, I saw the budget as pushing but not exceeding the envelope for today’s shaky financial times. Now, I’m concerned that these last minute additions will enrage the majority. Again, in my opinion, the final days of crafting the budgets at the Deliberative Sessions will shape the tone on voting day.

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

As usual, this week's broadcast version of GraniteGrok and AnkleBitingPundits brings an array of items and guests for your consideration-- ALL STARTING AT 9AM! As always, thanks to the technical wizardry and analytical skills of Skip, if you are beyond the broadcast area of Newstalk 1490 WEMJ, simply click here for instructions on how to connect and listen on the Internet via livestream. (Podcasts here)

• Paul Punturieri has been a resident of Moultonboro for the past 6 years. Prior to that he lived and worked in Saudi Arabia in the healthcare sector for a number of years. He is a core member of the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance (MCA), a local citizen's group that promotes openeness and transparency in local governement. Politically he is a "self proclaimed moderate with a slight rightward list."  While the MCA might hail from one of the Granite State's smaller populated towns, they made their presence felt this week down in Concord in a BIG way.

As reported in this prior post, an area "Republican" sponsored a series of onerous law changes designed to thwart or diminish the powers of local government: HB114 that will gut the ability of SB2 towns to change warrants at their deliberative sessions.  Another, HB72, makes it harder to allow citizens to ask for secret ballot voting on certain items during a Town Meeting / Deliberative Session by raising the number of signers needed to request this from five (5) to fifty (50).  If you have EVER been at a Town Meeting, you know this will effectively eliminate the ability citizens the option to cast their votes privately.  It also forces a change for a request for a recount from five (5) to twenty-five (25) voters. The third government-friendly bill offered by state representative Betsy Patten (R-Moultonboro) is HB71, which will allow town officials to bond TEN TIMES the present amount they are allowed now without being required to hold a public hearing.

Enter the activists of the MCA. With members speaking at public hearings held in Concord this week, well, lets just say Ms. Patten's proposals were given the thorough negative reception they so richly deserved. The MCA efforts-- brought together thanks to the quick and coordinated actions of its members-- show what a dedicated group of activists can achieve. Mr. Punturieri will detail the efforts.

• As noted in this previous posting, Vietnam Veteran (Navy) and loyal Pease Greeter Jack Kimball sent a passionate email about a new and insidious phenomena occuring recently throughout the US-- INCLUDING HERE IN NH:

As I explained last night, after Greeting the Troops, I have found out that there have been very large Pro Hamas, Anti-Israeli Rallies all over our country.  Some of them turned violent. The key point here is that we now have an element in this country that is not afraid to demonstrate their Anti Americanism as well as their support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas. 

This is the kind of stuff that our kids are learning in US colleges all over the country and it cannot go unchallanged. 

We have the responsibility to fight the good fight at home while our wonderful troops are fighting the other fight, overseas.  Imagine what they must think when they see this garbage going on in our own country.  What they really need to see is that we are doing something abut it.  So, if any of you have video cameras, please bring them a take some video of our group during the counter rally and get it up on YouTube.

And indeed, we will have Jack on to discuss the counter demonstration rally that is to take place in Durham Center from 12:00 PM to 2:00 PM this coming Sunday. Jack, like me, and I'm sure many of you, is rightfully angry that, given the events of September 11, and the price paid by our brave soldiers in the fighting since, people would have the gall to march and openly demonstrate in FAVOR of terrorists. We'll also talk a bit about the troops he greets at Pease, and what he thinks is coming down the pike, given some recent danger signs most people probably gave scant attention...

• All politics is local... Even though we may discuss several items specific to Gilford with our friend and fellow GilfordGrok blogger Terry Stewart, you should note that what's happening here could (or maybe SHOULD) be happening where you live. We'll cover the wrap of the budget season for the budget committee and the Town and School District. What was achieved and what was missed. And now, once again, the blog has caused a stir among some of the locals. For them, there's waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much free speech going on around here! It seems that the tax and spend crowd doesn't like it when their ways are exposed.

• Are there any Republicans left in the US Senate these days? How can it be that Hillary Clinton can sail through the appointment hearings with nary a peep from "our side"? Why shouldn't we be upset that someone that "didn't know" he had to pay income taxes for 4 to six years is now slated to head the IRS... yes THAT IRS? Arrghh!

• And of course, ===============>> Your calls are encouraged at 603 527 1490.

Posted by Doug at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A respected colleague asked me to recheck my facts regarding the flap over the Elementary School position “cuts”. According to my colleague, the teachers have nothing to do with this and if I bothered to check I’d clearly see that only three teachers have signed the Warrant Article that seeks to restore the funds and the position.

Okay, fair enough. I set out this morning to find evidence that I’m wrong about this. Turns out that my rhetoric may be slightly too harsh but I emphasize the word “slightly”.

After some research I’ve concluded thus far that the only amendment needed on yesterday’s post was to change the title slightly. It now reads “A FEW Elementary School Teachers Trying to Stiff Taxpayers”.

Additionally, this small group of teachers is doing everything they can to stir up the parents into joining their cause.

To arrive at this conclusion I have done three things today.

1)      I Re-read the messages I received from a credible source (someone advocating on behalf of the teachers) on this subject. During the email debate on this issue the writer clearly makes the case from the teacher’s point of view. Not once during this debate does the writer refer to any “concerned parents”. The concern is 100% on behalf of the teachers at that point in time. (before these teachers drafted some parents to their cause)

2)      I re-read the paper articles and spoke with people that were at the public hearing. Clearly the “concerned” parents were surrounded by the small group of teachers in question. Teachers were clearly at the hearing and making noise. The most outspoken teachers were, Pam Hayes, Carol Podmore, Linda Wright, and Patty Madore. Plus Mark Wright who works for the district. Furthermore, one of the “concerned” parents is actually a volunteer for the district.

3)      I re-read my notes from the Elementary School discussion with Sandy McGonagle. I specifically asked her who was making all the noise about the cuts and her response was “a small group of teachers”. The only concerned parent at the time was Joe Wernig and he is a teacher in another district. Sue Allen, Chairperson of the School Board did say to the Budget committee “keep in mind that this is confined group of teachers who are making all the noise”.

After looking into the situation a little deeper I’m still seeing this for what I think it is. A small group of teachers that have fired up a few parents into making a stink about a situation that ultimately has very little, if anything, to do with the outcome of the children’s education. I see the lack of teacher’s signatures on the warrant article as a convenient way to provide cover now that they’ve got an angry group of parents making all the noise.

So far that’s my “opinion” based on the facts as I’ve laid them out. In fact, claiming that the teachers have nothing to do with this is patently false. (sorry, the facts don’t support that)

I have a great deal of respect for my colleague and I completely admit that I am skeptical of issues surrounding teacher unions and budgets. I hear my colleague when he tells me this has nothing to do with the teacher’s union. Unfortunately you can’t separate the two. They are a union by definition that speaks with a unified voice. It puzzles me that I can’t find a teacher that likes the teacher’s union yet they all belong to one. How does the teacher’s union relate to the noise about the Elementary School?

The teachers union has no problem coming out to support all kinds of issues that suit their needs. They have done this in the past to help gain support of the community on issues they feel important. They also expect a certain amount of support from the community. This is why the teacher’s contract initially gained 100% support from the Budget Committee on their new contract. In return I would think that at a minimum the community, and the Budget committee, could expect a certain amount of support from the teachers union. This issue should be important to them and if they do support the School Board’s budget proposal, they sure have a funny way of showing it. In my opinion, their silence is a glowing endorsement for all the noise being made about the Elementary School issue.

You have to admit. If the teacher’s union would have come out in support of this solution for the elementary School then it would go a long way to comfort any concerned parents. The facts are just the opposite. The teachers union, as a whole, is totally silent throughout this debate.

This is a solid reason why there should be a re-vote from the Budget Committee on the Teacher’s Contract. We, as a community, deserve to know where the Teacher’s Union comes down on this issue.

Posted by Terry S. at 10:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Members of the Gilford Energy Committee invite all members of the public to attend an Energy Fair this Saturday, January 17 at the Town Hall. Featuring a number of renewable and alternative energy equipment dealers and experts, the event seeks to expose residents to the growing variety of offerings being made available for home use.

Local vendors, along with others from around the state, will set up displays in the lobby and the main meeting room to promote and inform residents in the Lakes Region about environmentally safe energy sources and services currently offered for use in the home or business.

In addition, Saturday’s Energy Fair will present an opportunity for citizens to gather and discuss energy-related topics including conservation and to discover money-saving tips homeowners can use around the house. The Energy Committee also looks forward to discussing its mission and work thus far with all interested parties. The event runs from 11 until 3 p.m. 

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

During the public hearing on the school budget  the School board (SB) and Budget Committee (Budcom) got an ear full from a small group of parents & teachers. The commotion was caused by a move to cut the budget by not replacing a teacher, assist. Principal and Guidance councelor. Retiring staff leaves these positions vacant and the decision was made not to replace them.

The teachers should not be able to influence adding money to the budget and then have the luxury of a guaranteed raise to help off set any increase in cost to pay for it. If they feel these increases are necessary, then let them also feel the pain in paying for them. This is clearly a group of teachers looking for less work and more pay and their reasons for keeping these positions is completely baseless.

We keep hearing about the children with terrible parents and all those single moms. In Gilford? This is the biggest straw dog story I’ve ever heard-- and even if it were true, we should be educating the parents, not the kids. Of course this group of liberal elites keeps telling us about all these troubled kids that need counseling and cooking classes-- but not their kids, of course, because they are better parents. So what they're saying is that you stupid parents are the reason we need to spend all this money. If only you were as smart as they are.

Posted by Terry S. at 03:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Selectmen Gus Benevides and Kevin Hayes, along with Town Administrator Scott Dunn joined Doug and Skip on the radio Saturday for an hour-long conversation about the budget, the process, and the buzzword moving forward: "Austerity." Click here to download the podcast, or simply use the handy player below:

.

Posted by Doug at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Selectmen Gus Benevides and Kevin Hayes will appear on Meet the New Press radio at 9AM on 1490 WEMJ to discuss the issues of the day with Doug and Skip. Newly hired Town Administrator Scott Dunn will join them as well. Because 2 selectmen of 3 constitutes a quorum, the event was posted in accordance with RSA 91-A.

Phone calls are welcome at 603 527 1490. For more information on the program, click here.

Posted by Doug at 09:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)