GilfordGrok

Click on the image or click here to see the full contract:

 

 

 

Posted by Skip at 09:42 PM | Permalink

There seems to be an inordinate number of employee contracts for a venture this size.  While employment contracts do play a role in the private sector, they are usually only for "key" personnel - either those for which the enterprise would fail if gone (like a founder) or for one that would have severe consequences due to key information going out the door (e.g., marketing plans, product plans, and the like).

Most of the following employee contracts cover people that would be merely employees at will at most firms.  The following covers employee contracts for:

• Assistant Superintendent / Business Manager ($103.1K) + longevity pay
  
• Athletic Director ($78.7K) + longevity pay
• High School Guidance Director ($70K)
• Director of Media Services ($69.3K)
• High School Technology Integration Specialist ($56.5K)
• Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds ($72.3K)
• Business and Personnel Manager ($56.2K)
• Food Service Director ($59.5K)
• Superintendent  ($125K)
• Interim Elementary School Principal ($88.6K) + longevity pay
• Gilford Middle School Principal ($92.8K) + longevity pay
• Gilford Interim Middle School Assistant Principal ($58K) + longevity pay
• Gilford Assistant High School Principal ($83.7K) + longevity pay
• Technology Coordinator ($92.1K) + longevity pay
• Director of Curriculum, Student Learning, Professional Development ($83.2K) + longevity pay
• Director of Student Services ($96.1K) + longevity pay
• School Nurse ($69K)
• School Nurse ($43.6K)
  
• School Nurse ($61K)

I also find it more than a bit strange that for many of the positions, there exists both longevity pay ("please, stay with us!") as well as retirement incentive ("please, leave us!").  What a perverse set of incentives!

I also add, as a former Budget Committee member, that by issuing these employee contracts, it takes those positions completely outside of the normal Budgetary oversight process - it is as if they simply didn't exist and that there is nothing that the Budget Committee can do about these costs (wages alone are $1,458,700 - benefits would add a six figure figure on top of that),

Click here for the entire PDF (or on the image below):

 

 

 

Posted by Skip at 09:38 PM | Permalink

This is relative to Article III on the School ballot - the Teachers Contract that calls for no raises in the first year but $191,000 the second (are YOU getting raises?):

Click here for the entire contract PDF format or on the image:

A couple of things to note upon a quick read:

• Do you get up to a 2 year sabbatical (no pay) after working only 3 years? Or a full year at 50% pay after 7 years?

• When, in the private sector, could someone accrue up to 90 days of sick time and be able to cash out at taxpayer expense?
  

• You know, when I have quit a position, I've never received a parting gift of $3 - 5,000, no matter how long I was there.

• And if I retire, the taxpayers give additional "gifts" up to 25% of the last year's salary.  So, if you are making $70,000, that is $17,000.  That doesn't include paid health insurance after retirement either.
  

Posted by Skip at 09:00 PM | Permalink

Here is our advisory for voting concerning the School Ballot for 2012:

For the School Board 3 year term, you have the choice to vote two candidates; we are asking that you ONLY VOTE FOR ONE.

School Board three year term:

• Doug Lambert

Our recommendations for Warrant Articles:

• Article III - Collective Barganing Agreement (Teachers contract).  No raises the first year, $191,000 the second year.    VOTE NO
  

• Article V - Purchase automatic Occupancy Light Sensors for $75,000 (Have the professional staff turn off the lights when they leave the room).  VOTE NO

• Article VI - Voters to approve all non-union contracts?   VOTE YES

• Article VII - Should the Budget Committee be in charge of creating the default budget?  VOTE YES

• Article VIII - Instituting a tax cap   VOTE YES

• Article IX - change the voting date to the second Tuesday in May  VOTE YES
  

For the full PDF of the ballot, either click on the image below or click here.

Everything else?  We have no strong feelings.  That said, take a look at the Gilford Taxpayer Coalition mailing for more guidance.  Good folks, that group! 

 

Posted by Skip at 08:24 PM | Permalink

Here is our advisory for voting concerning the Town Ballot for 2012.

Please note we are asking for your votes for:

Budget Committee:

• David "Skip" Murphy

• Stuart Savage

• Barbara Aichinger
  

 

Our recommendations for Warrant Articles:

• Article 8: New fire engine for $450,000   VOTE NO
  

• Articles 18-21: Essentially, sending $55,170 to charities.   VOTE NO

• Article 25: Should the Budget Committee create the default budget?  VOTE YES

• Article 26: Should Gilford adopt a tax cap?  VOTE YES

• Article 27: Should Gilford move town elections to the second Tuesday in May?  VOTE YES

• Article 28: Should the voters approve all non-union employee contracts?   VOTE YES

• Article 29: Should max raises be 2% (instead of 4%) and 20% of health insurance costs by 2020?  VOTE YES

 Click on it to bring up the full PDF of the entire sample ballot - or click here.

Everything else?  We have no strong feelings.  That said, take a look at the Gilford Taxpayer Coalition mailing for more guidance.  Good folks, that group!

Posted by Skip at 07:55 PM | Permalink

During joint Selectmen / School Board joint public meeting, the "Lady in Green" got up to speak:

Now, I truly mean no disrespect at calling her the "Lady in Green" - as shown by the call to speak up, I just did not hear her say her name.  So, no disrespect for that.

However, I do believe that she showed the crowd quite the disrespect - those were not her words.  Oh sure, it seemed like she meant her words; it certainly looked like she had a sufficient level of "self-righteous" anger when she left the podium.

At least, that's what it looked like.  Reality?  Not so much.  From someone sitting close to her:

The gal who gave that tear jerking speech was sitting in front of me. She was given that speech in the form of a hand written piece of paper that was handed to her by the teacher beside her. When she came back to her seat she handed the paper back to the teacher and the teacher thanked her for reading it.

Truth or not?  Reality or a great facade?  Who knows?

But if that was a teacher, what better way to protect the "educational-industrial complex" (after all, we now spend more money on education than on the Department of Defense)?   A tax cap would definitely put a crimp in future union contracts - and their raises.  It would also put a lid on the higher Admin costs as well. Face it - it will become a zero sum economic pie. Could be kind of interesting to see if, if the faucet is shut down, if this School Board can become creative and really make do with less? I have been in start up situations before and when one has hard limitations slapping you in the face, you are forced to become very good at coming up with constraint driven ideas.

Or, will we truly find out if it really is "for the kids"...

...or for the adults?

Posted by Skip at 10:18 PM | Permalink

Over at Townhall, Judge Napolitano penned a column that caught my eye:

What if you are only allowed to vote because it doesn't make a difference? What if no matter how you vote, the elites get to have it their way? What if "one person, one vote" is just a fiction created by the government to induce your compliance?...

A charade, a farce, and the meaning of democracy is no more. This country was built on the foundation of one man, one vote; that this one vote is precious and it should count for something. Casting that vote is the culmination of a sovereign citizen deciding how they will be governed by the elected and that includes guidance to the elected when voting on specific issues. The problem here is that the "elected" (School Board) decided that the citizens don't know what is best for them (or their families). To start things off, watch Kurt Webber, Chair of the Gilford School Board, reaction to the call out of "arrogance" as a town resident takes him to task for ignoring the will of the voters:

Yes, Webber is not a happy camper and it is obvious that he is not too keen at being taken to task. Yes, it is edited, but the context of the full video can be watched here at my blog, GilfordGrok ("all things Gilford"), Part 4, starting at about 5:20). The event was a joint meeting of the Selectmen and School Board held to 'listen to public input' as each is having to deal with citizens having brought forward Petition Warrants that, if implemented, would place tax caps on their budgets. Why? What the Judge is talking about has happened in my hamlet - the resident is trying to get Webber to understand why people in town are upset with School Board. The topic - full day kindergarten (the local communities in NH can make that decision for themselves) and why did the School Board decide to unilaterally implement it EVEN AS THE TOWN FOLK HAD PREVIOUSLY VOTED IT DOWN? Sounds like elitists telling the proles "we don't care about your vote". Oh sure, perhaps it saved some money - the elimination of some busing for a total yearly savings of about $11,000 which was loudly trumpeted. Yet, upon my asking, the extra staffing cost to make that program work was the opportunity cost of a reading teacher that had to be moved from another area to the kindergarten, a greater cost, is simply brushed aside (as the bottom line was unchanged from a staffing perspective). Prior to the above meeting was another one - the Gilford Candidate (speeches, Q & A respectively) night held by the High School student Council. I have abstracted out a question that another resident specifically asked three of School Board candidates: "why did you go against the vote of the town and implement full day kindergarten?". Here, both incumbents, Chair Kurt Webber and Past Chair Sue Allen defend their decision to override the vote of the Town simply because it saved money and they were elected to make the decisions.

I note with pride that my friend, Doug Lambert was also part of the group that was asked the question - and that from a Conservative standpoint, a Constitutional (US or NH) standpoint, and from one that stands up for that foundation of "one man, one vote":

"What can I say? That's just another example of how the School Board does what they want...if it's a vote they disagree with, they just do what they want....if they had all these facts and everything was on their side, bring it to the people, let the people vote. I'm more than willing to trust voters in the town of Gilford."

The full question:

Several years ago, the School Board put a warrant article on the ballot for all day kindergarten. The voters of Gilford rejected the measure. Regardless of the cost, why do you feel it is acceptable to now incorporate it without the voters input? Why do you think you have it both ways and do it by Executive fiat?

Cross-posted at GraniteGrok.

Posted by Skip at 09:54 PM | Permalink

Many thanks to retiring Gilford Budget Committee Chair Dick Hickok.  I have gotten to know Dick only recently through my own efforts to reign in the local government spending and increase voter participation and improve transparency.  Dick and I have exchanged emails and he has given me advice as I make a run for a seat on the Gilford Budget Committee.  After Deliberative Session he remarked ‘do see why this can be frustrating?’    The people of Gilford that keep voting in all this government spending do not understand that they are literally biting the hand that feeds them.  As the tax rates go up the real estate values drop.  The pay and benefits package of the upper echelon Administrative staff both at the town and school district are NOT on parity with the private sector.  For example our Town Administrator is one of the highest paid for towns our size.  He receives not one but TWO taxpayer funded retirement plans.  This is the same guy who claimed that he never received my legal “Right to Know” requests even though an investigation by others clearly showed that they reached his desktop.  Now on the school district side its worse.  Our Business Administrator is again one of the highest paid in the entire state (salary alone=$103,173.00).  He receives over 7 weeks of paid vacation and the taxpayer pays 100% of his health and dental costs.  Our school board chairman, Kurt Webber,  just this last summer signed a contract with him for 4 more years of this.  In this contract the district promises him a yearly raise and a performance bonus.  Yet nowhere in the contract does it define how this ‘performance’ is measured.  He is not alone.  A recent school board study showed that on average the district administrative staff is over paid by an average $11,000.00 yet they claim it is warranted due to the level of experience they have.  Well that experience has not held costs down and it did not prevent Gilford from becoming a DISTRICT IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT.  Money can’t buy you love and apparently it can’t buy us a district NOT in need of improvement. As I stood there talking with Dick Hickok he explained that he is considering moving away from Gilford over the next few years.  His reason?  He just can’t justify the taxes he pays here on the lake in Gilford.  Let’s stop this out of control spending, put the brakes on and support our TAX CAPs for both the school and town.  Perhaps then, folks like Dick Hickok will want to stick around.

 

For Liberty,
Barbara P. Aichinger
Governor’s Island
Gilford, NH

Posted by Barbara at 05:35 PM | Permalink

In response to the most recent letters concerning the school nurse and her 36.6% pay differential over the average pay for nurses here in NH.  Their letters highlight my point.  In the private sector we do not pay more for longevity for the sake of longevity.  We pay for the value of that job.  For example:  If I have an engineer on my staff for 18 years I can’t afford to pay 36%  (or 53% as the case is for the Middle School Nurse) above market value for that employees service.  The cost to my customers would be too high and my customers would go else where and my business would go under.  In addition if I have a job that requires a certain skill set and education level I don’t hire someone with a Masters degree and pay more if I only need the skill set of a Bachelors degree.  This is the problem that we have with government and one of the reasons why it grows and is bankrupting the private sector under its tax burden.  Government has become a very very nice place to work.   People gravitate to it and stay there.  Last year when leaving Deliberative Session I was approached by a small business owner.  The told me they just had an employee quit and go to work for Laconia.  The pay and benefits were better there.  I don’t begrudge the work that the school nurses do and I would expect them to do an excellent job and I am happy to hear that they do.  What I have a problem with is when the local government pays above the prevailing wage that the private sector would receive for the same skill.  Remember, not to long ago folks who worked for the government where considered public servants.  People went to work there because, even though the pay was less, they wanted the satisfaction of serving their community.  Now many go to work there because it’s the best job in town.  When I look at the School District non union contracts, which I have posted on www.NHPropertyRights.com  , I am amazed to see what our current School Board Chairman Kurt Webber signed.  Why did he need to sign a 4 year contract with the Business Administrator  for a $103,173.00 salary with 100%  health and dental coverage?  He knew that economic times were tough so why in this same contract did he promise yearly raises and performance bonuses.  Who in the private sector would do this nowadays?  No one!  Why do we pay 100% benefits for the Business and Personnel Manager and the Supervisor of Buildings and Grounds?  So should the district continue to pay some of its employees above prevailing wages and then cut others?  It does not make good economic sense.  This is why I am running for Budget Committee.  We need highlight these issues and Right Size the local government.

 

Barbara P Aichinger

Governor’s Island

Gilford, NH

Posted by Barbara at 05:30 PM | Permalink

Held last night at the Town Hall, the Selectmen and the School Board held a joint public meeting so that they could hear what the public had to say concerning the petition warrants on the ballot - specifically the tax caps and the creation of the default budgets.

All of the proceedings of the meeting are here; the division into parts is to make processing / viewing easier:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Posted by Skip at 02:42 PM | Permalink

In addition to the speeches given by each of the candidates, attendees were requested to submit written questions to the students manning the event.  After the candidates gave their brief words, the Question and Answer period started in. 

Some questions were directed to only one person, some were directed to multiple people (e.g, one question for all three School Board candidates).  All the questions and answers are given below - this is merely edited for "time for each video:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Posted by Skip at 02:03 PM | Permalink

This past Tuesday night, the Gilford High School Student Council held their yearly Candidates Forum.  Each of the candidates running for any Gilford elected office were invited to give a 4 minute speech to the assembled crowd (my estimated was around 50 people) as to why they were running.  Here are the videos of those candidates that actually showed up or had their [absentee] Letters read for them.

School Board: Sue Allen, Doug Lambert, Karen Thurston, Kurt Webber

Selectman: John O'Brien    Moderator: Sandy McGonagle    Library Trustee: Leon Albushies

Budget Committee: Barbara Aichinger, Phyllis Corrigan, Skip Murphy, stuart Savage

(Absentee Letters: Richard Grenier, Allen Voivod, J.Scott Davis, No Shows: JoEllen Space, Joe Hoffman)

Posted by Skip at 01:45 PM | Permalink

My name is Skip Murphy and I am running for re-election for the Gilford Budget Committee. I am also endorsing Barbara Aichinger and Stuart Savage for the BudComm and for the following reasons. Bev Buker correctly identified the spending problem in her Laconia Daily Sun 2/9 Letter “to work with the available money on hand” as for some in Town “the available money “ is never enough; the implicit demand is that the needs of Government trumps that of taxpayers' need for their own hard earned money. What is rarely is addressed is the important point: what is the cost of Government doing more? Unfortunately, there are those in Gilford that don't care – they just demand those services regardless of the cost (or the result). They seldom ask “can this service be done better at a lower cost?” nor, “what is the unit cost of providing that level of service”?

Terry Stewart in his Sun Letter (2/14) Letter, honed in on that lament – one cannot reduce budgets without some departmental budgets getting haircuts. I've heard the hysterics over the years that services will suffer if even the slightest of cuts are implemented but I've heard very few ever raise the issue of “Does Government have to have the best at the expense of taxpayer wallets?”. Two concrete examples are the buying a costly new fire engine vs fixing the current backup one to last a couple more years, and propping up the Planning Dept staffing even as its work load has plunged the last few years.

But the biggest problem is that Labor costs constitute the majority of our budgets and are amongst the highest of NH towns our size. My first meeting on the BudComm, I unveiled a salary study that showed that Gilford consistently paid highest salaries for all the Town related job descriptions of the 32 town surveyed. Nothing I have seen since has led me to believe that has changed. Even the School Board's own Administrative Salary study found their costs were higher than similar districts. These costs lead directly to a larger tax due price that show up twice annually – unless someone fights to keep that in check.

That was one of the reasons I originally ran to be on the Gilford Budget Committee and why I am, again, asking for your vote to re-elect me to the Budget Committee. Much has been done and in conjunction with others, I helped achieved real financial structural changes benefiting taxpayers with starting the process of employees paying more for their healthcare as in the private sector and moving from COLAs to merit increases to name two specific examples. I've also been the only Member that has consistently, over the years, asked for large budget decreases to keep more of your money in your pockets.

I have been accused of having an agenda these last six years and I readily admit such: “why should Government spending rise faster than the ordinary family's income?” Government does need to serve its citizens but never at a price that puts families second financially. That is why I ask for your vote for me as well as Barbara Aichinger and Stuart Savage; I need their help and I can promise that we will look out for your wallets!

Posted by Skip at 04:01 PM | Permalink

Articles 1 & 2 (3% budget decrease amendment):

Article 2 Amendment Results / Articles 3 - 5:

Article 6:

Article 7 - 8:

Article 9:

Posted by Skip at 12:17 AM | Permalink

Articles 1 - 7

Article 8 (Part A):

Article 8 (Part B):

Article 8 (Part C):

Article 9 (1.5% Decrease):

Article 9 (1.5% Decrease vote result, $12K increase for Town Clerk / Town Tax Collector):

Articles 10 - 17:

Article 11 - 24:

Articles 25 - 26:

Articles 27 - 28:

Article 29:

a

Posted by Skip at 11:37 PM | Permalink

In response to the Gilford Selectmen and the Town Administrator’s misunderstanding of the Petitioned warrant articles I would like to respond with the following:  First of all each of the 5 petitioned articles submitted to the town had between 30 and 50 signatures so many Gilford taxpayers did take the time to make sure these got presented to the voters.

ARTICLE 25:  This relegates the creation of the default budget to the budget committee.  The creation of the default budget is not the sole purview of the Selectmen but can be relegated to EITHER the Selectmen or the Budget Committee per RSA 32:14.  The Petitioners would like to give this choice to the voters.  The Petitioners feel that it should be the budget committee in order that a LOWER default budget might be devised so that more choice is presented to the voters.  VOTE YES

ARTICLE 26:  This is the long awaited TAX CAP.  This is the first year that town’s have been able to vote on a tax cap in New Hampshire.  This tax cap is for 0% which means that the amount that the town took from the taxpayers last year will be the same for each year the tax cap is in force.  This is NOT ‘toothless’ as implied by Town Administrator Dunn.  The language of the article is prescribed by RSA32-5;b and if passed is binding on the town governing body or Budget Committee, without recourse, regardless of who prepares the budget. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 27:  Pushing out the town elections until May.  Our 2011 town election voter turnout was less than 900 voters.  We also have a very low turnout at Deliberative Session.  This is because in part it’s COLD in February and March and people stay home.  In addition we have many many snowbirds.  Some of them do vote absentee but they cannot participate in Deliberative Session if they are in Florida.   The Selectmen claim that if we do this the town will struggle due to the difference in the fiscal year versus the calendar year.  Hogwash, RSA 32:13 has a prescribed method for this situation and many towns operate this way.  Let’s give democracy a bigger role here in Gilford and push out the date a bit to reach out to more voters. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 28:  Voter approval for Non Union Contracts.  Well what is good for the goose is good for the gander.  If the union contracts get vetted why can’t the non union contracts get vetted?  To date the town claims it has only ONE non union contract and that is the Town Administrator.  The Selectmen claim that this would prevent employment of contracted employees until the town votes.  Not true, many towns have no contracts for many employees indeed many of Gilford’s employees have no employment contracts.  The Selectmen can chose to hire the person without a contract until it is approved by voters.  Vetting these contracts is an important part of the improved transparency that the petitioners are seeking. VOTE YES

ARTICLE 29: Changes to the personnel policies and procedures manual.  This was a tough one to put together.  Buried on the town web site is the Gilford Employee Personnel and Policies manual.  The Petitioners feel that the private sector and the public sector are no longer on parity.  Private sector income is down, benefits costs have shifted to employees and retirement accounts have been hit due to fluctuations in the stock market.  However the public sector has been largely immune to this.  So the private sector gets stuck paying for both!  To summarize, these changes are:  Increasing the amount of Health and Dental benefits paid for by the employees by 10%.  Today the taxpayers pay 94% of the Health and 84% of the Dental.  Making raises every two years versus every year and lowering the amount of those increases.  In addition when a person reaches the top of their pay scale they just don’t keep getting raises.  In the private sector a job category is worth a certain pay and you don’t keep increasing salary because of longevity.  Also eliminating the 2% town provided contribution to a second retirement plan.  Petitioners believe one taxpayer provided retirement plan is enough.   All of the other benefits: life insurance, long term disability, short term disability, vacation time, sick time, health club stipend, training costs, contributions to the State Retirement plan (as prescribed by law) and payment for not participating in benefits packages all remain untouched. VOTE YES

In summary the goal is to lower Gilford’s tax rate, increase voter participation and improve local government transparency.

For Liberty,  

Barbara Aichinger

Posted by Barbara at 12:35 PM | Permalink