GilfordGrok

Kate Hamel, President of the Friends of the Gilford Public Library is asking Gilford voters to support the Selectmen’s recommendation for a slightly higher amount than the Budget Committee. Why the difference between the Selectmen and Budget Committee’s recommendation? It’s really quite simple. The Selectmen, at the request of the library Trustees, omitted the library wages in the formula to define “operating expenses”. Apparently, the Budget Committee agreed more with fellow member and now candidate for Selectman, John O’Brien’s question; “wouldn’t you include wages in the operating expenses of any business?”

What the Trustees of the Library are saying is that it shouldn’t matter that wages spiked up 16.3% in the last two years, you should ignore that and be happy they only asked to level fund all other items. I’m not trying to be sarcastic here; they truly believe that the increase in use justifies this request.

The voters of Gilford have to decide how far to expand library services and at what pace. According to Richard Young, candidate for Budget Committee, he stated; “the library is a recession sanctuary where unemployed people looked forward to report to every day like a job.” According to Kate Hamel, “libraries train our workforce”.  Do you believe that? I thought the mission of the library was to contain books and periodicals for the public’s use. Apparently, today’s library is so much more. Movie nights, “gaming” nights, unemployment center, cooking classes, yoga classes, knitting classes and outing events. Who knew?

Even if you support all this expansion of services do you believe it should grow without limits? Is there a point where modest growth is acceptable? For the last two years the library has request double the percent of growth than nearly all other municipal departments. Is the library more important than the rest of the town’s services? The library also has the added benefit of a novelty store and donations from the Friends of the Gilford Public Library. The Friends also apply for grants that, unlike other government spending, never show up in the budget. In addition to the huge spike in wages they also received a senior “volunteer” funded from a senior program. (I know volunteer and funded is an oxymoron but we’re talking about the government) I also find it extraordinary that the library has no problem finding donations for controversial things like “Guitar Hero” games but can’t find any donations for needed items like extra chairs.

The Budget Committee’s recommendation provides 3.1% growth for the library. (In line with all other departments)  Please come to the Gilford Municipal Deliberative Session on Feb. 4 to support your Budget Committee’s budget that more than adequately funds all Gilford’s municipal services.       

Posted by Terry S. at 11:51 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

 Debra Zimmerman is running for School board in Gilford. She cites the personnel cuts in the Elementary School budget as her reason for seeking a position on the board. In this economy it’s hard to imagine a candidate proposing wasteful spending with little evidence to support it. Ms. Zimmerman’s reasoning is based on points that have very little to do with the proposed staffing cuts. Unfortunately, her emotional hysteria excludes the overwhelming supportive facts that drive the School Board to the most logical conclusion.

Fact; 329 students are projected to attend Gilford Elementary School for the 2009 -2010 year compared to slightly above 500 just a few years ago.

Fact; Guidance ratios at the GES were 308 students per counselor. With the proposed cuts they’ll be way below that level at just 240 students per counselor. (Guidance Council recommends 250 to 1)

Fact; the proposed staff will average 17 students per teacher in the classroom. (State recommends average of 15 – 18)

Fact; the School board has proposed 28.4 regular Ed teachers, 8 regular assistant teachers, 1 regular aid, 5 special Ed teachers and 1.8 guidance councilors. Basic math reveals 329 students divided by 44 adults will result in the GES enjoying slightly less than just 8 children for each professionally trained adult.

This number doesn’t include Administrative staff, volunteer parents, 16 special Ed aids, librarian, nurse, secretaries and numerous other adults that are working at the GES. Nowhere on the planet are your children’s needs better cared for and professionally supervised!

I hope the voting citizens of Gilford examine Ms. Zimmerman’s claims very carefully. Had Ms. Zimmerman attended any of the numerous budget meetings, she’d know the facts overwhelmingly support the proposed budget. The government process allows voters three or more opportunities to publically voice their opinions on any portion of a proposed budget. The town of Gilford, unlike most towns, has the distinct reputation of encouraging citizens to voice their opinions at these public meetings. Ms. Zimmerman did not attend a single meeting that involved the creation of the GES proposed budget. In fact, no other parent or teacher voiced opposition to the plan during any of the public meetings. NOT ONE! 

I believe the Gilford School Board delayed making staff adjustments until a good opportunity presented itself to produce a painless outcome. Such a time and opportunity is here. Pick up any news paper across the country and read about layoffs in both the private and government sectors of our economy. In many cases, these layoffs are occurring due to budget short falls, regardless of student needs and ratios. Here in Gilford, we are fortunate to control both the budget and declining student enrollment in a less intrusive manner. There is no better time to make these adjustments than now. 

There is no question that Ms. Zimmerman and her group will be heard from at the Gilford School District deliberative session on February 3rd. Without opposition the emotional hysteria could jeopardize all the hard work that has gone into a school budget that actually saves taxpayers money. Gilford residents that are concerned about their taxes should show up Feb. 3^rd to support the proposed school budget.

Posted by Terry S. at 12:13 PM | Permalink