I'm not going to address most of the guest post by John but I do have some thoughts:
Mr. Stewart, it would be interesting to know your overall bottom line budget strategy goal.
I don't know about Terry, but here is my philosophy - at no time (during "normal times") should the rate of Government spending be above the rate of inflation. Roughly stated, that is also, in general terms, the rise in income of most families. My guiding question has always been "WHY should the revenue growth of government exceed that of the families that support it"? Government should serve the taxpayers - not the other way around.
That has always been my focus - and always will. Sure, it gets me in trouble with folks that have no problem in extending the role of government - for them, the Proper Role of Government is that of a more socialistic state - the collective doing it all for the residents. With a healthy dash of "we know best" thrown in as well.
Is it your goal to cut budgets 10%, or is it 20%, or is it 30%?
As was said repeatedly this budget season, this is not normal economic times. Don't get me wrong - I DID appreciate seeing that both the Town and School budgets came in a tad less than last years, but I believe that they should have been trimmed more and my votes reflect that.
Not in all cases, as the Selectmens' viewpoint (often discussed during our deliberations) was to "save jobs and cut stuff"; my problem was that when I tried to cut more stuff, I was outvoted - consistently.
I'll answer the question: would 5% have been OK with me? Yes - put off the new phone system, a truck, a cruiser, and a couple other "big" things. 10%? OK, but at that point, you would be near the bone. In this environment, perhaps needed as many of our residents have seen decreases in their incomes of at least that much if not more - I see no problem in ratcheting Government down in a similar manner. 20 - 30% - certainly not in one fell swoop - I'd rather keep spending flat for a while and let taxpayers "get ahead" and then let expenditures have a controlled growth.
Do you want to eventually cut services to the people of Gilford?
Since when did "services" become sacrosanct? It seems that the Holy Grail of any level of Government is to NEVER decrease an existing level of "services" - only grow them (or strive to keep them level if it is absolutely clear that decreasing them is the alternative).
Look, in bad times, things have to get cut - Companies cut services or the production of goods. Families have to cut their expenditures when times get rough as well.
I have news for folks that believe that Government has to supply all needs - it cannot. Nor should it. Instead, I would challenge the Leadership in Government (elected and appointed) to have the courage to tell the citizenry:
- What is the "internal ranking" of departments - which is the most important and which is the least"?
- Of the services offered by each department, rank them: most needed to least needed".
Example: the Police would be either the number one or two ranked department. However, the "call the seniors programs" that seem to be springing up all over would rank well below that of being able to respond to a burglary.
In fact, such a ranking system should be implemented and made known - letting the citizens know where the Selectmen priorities are set and then see how the funding follows that.
Is your intent to totally demoralize the employees (which also affects services) and the people of Gilford?
This will make me unpopular, but I will say it anyways - no employee, private or public, deserves a job. No one is entitled to a job. While Management does need to take that into account in either sector, there are times that "doing the right thing" is to remove funding from an organization - not doing so is mgt malfeasance. But I am tired of hearing, when a motion has been made to defund a line item or a series of line items, the immediate, knee-jerk response:
- You're cutting services!
- You're demoralizing employees!
Sorry, my PRIMARY role as a Budget Committee member is to watch out for the taxpayers' wallets. Period.
Let me also state this: I believe that the taxpayers are adults, not children. Sure, special interest groups are going to complain when their specific ox is being gored, but we are elected to make the tough decisions - not run away from them, scared of the heat that might rise from making an unpopular "cutting" action. Most taxpayers, especially right now, understand that sometimes, they cannot have what they want. They deal with priorities all the time - I think that they understand that (except for that particular special interest group) that not everything can be done all the time.
They can deal with that - being adults.
Is it your plan to make Gilford only a “town” and not have any sense of community?
Sorry John, but I'm going to blunt here: this was a stumble in the long, dark hole called "dumb". Since when has ANYONE (other than a collectivist EVER said maintained that Government spending is a foundational criteria of having a sense of community? C'mon John, you were kidding when your keys were tapping on the keyboard, right?
High GOVERNMENT, or Government spending is NOT equivalent to a sense of community. Nor is a sense of community dependent on NO spending, either. Frankly, IMHO, anyone that maintains that HAS to agree with the following (or some variant thereof):
People can only be happy when Government provides things to them. And ONLY Government can provide those things that create a sense of community.
Prove me wrong. John continues:
But let’s insure that we don’t add to the tough times by making low dollar amount cuts that affect morale for everyone any more than necessary.
Sorry John, I depart from you again. Yes, morale is important - but does it rise above families that have to do without in order to pay their tax bills? What about THEIR sense of demoralization - I heard little about that except for Sue, Terry, and I on a regular basis.
With these words, what you are telling the taxpayers of Gilford, especially those at the lower end of the financial spectrum, that you are saying is that you value the morale of the employees over the struggles of the taxpayers that pay the bill.
Oh, one last thing - in reference to your bullet items of detailing the discussion items at which Terry was not present and thus, giving the impression that he should not voted? Two thoughts:
- the Dormady Defense
- The discussion we had last year where Dale insisted that a decision has to be made solely on a line item / numbers basis while I disagreed saying that disagreeing on a purely philosophical basis was just as valid.
Terry's No vote, based on those two observations, was as valid as anyone else who voted.
OK, because I am a blogger but not a lawyer (nor play one on the 'Grok), a bleg and favor to all those folks, lawyers and legislators, that can send some advice! 
