GilfordGrok

On a number of occasions, Joe has made it quite clear that he is of the mind set that those of us on this side of the political divide need to just shut up and stop costing the money unneeded funds in legal fees.

Congrats, dude - you've now joined the club.  However, instead of trying to right a wrong, you simply wanted to make a crass political play.  You cost a whole slew of hours of work to a whole bunch of people, including Barbara Aichinger.

And if that was your sole point, you succeeded.  Such a thing to be remembered for.

But you will also be remembered for not having the courage of your convictions by being a "no show".  If there was any thought that this was a truthful challenge on your part, you proved that with the lack of your shadow in the hearing room.

Thanks for proving our point for us.

And as always, remember this:

Oh wait! Joe may have a big problem now:

II. No person shall use or threaten force, violence, or any tactic of coercion or intimidation to knowingly induce or compel any other person to vote or refrain from voting, vote or refrain from voting for any particular candidate or ballot measure, or refrain from registering to vote.

III. No person shall engage in voter suppression by knowingly attempting to prevent or deter another person from voting or registering to vote based on fraudulent, deceptive, misleading, or spurious grounds or information. Prohibited acts of voter suppression include: (a) Challenging another person's right to register to vote or to vote based on information that he or she knows to be false or misleading.

Hey, Joe! I think that the phrase " Lawyer-up" may be in your future. Your latest post in Facebook at Gilford, NH may have been a bit premature.

Posted by Skip at 09:15 AM | Permalink

For those that cannot sit and watch all of the seven parts of the hearing, here is the salient part:

So, Joe? Here's a bit of advice for you:

Posted by Skip at 08:47 AM | Permalink

Yesterday, the Supervisors of the Checklist spent from 4 hours, starting at 10am, hearing Barbara Aichinger defend herself against the politically motivated intent by Joe Wernig to have her thrown off the voter rolls and thus, disqualifying her from her run for office (not to mention the publicity it caused).

Here is the full video from the hearing:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Part 4:

Part 5:

Part 6:

Part 7:

Posted by Skip at 08:32 AM | Permalink

Posted by Skip at 08:18 PM | Permalink

Posted by Skip at 08:06 PM | Permalink

C. Bradford Morgan's Letter was in the Laconia Daily Sun   (P. 6):

I wonder what C. Bradford Morgan would think about this statement: “Every child does not deserve a public education; instead, they deserve a publicly funded education”. The first is a locked system that is government funded, staffed with government employees, and teaches a government specified curriculum: a couple of systems fits all. Add to that the growing philosophy by the educational system that they know what is best for the children than their parents. I have personally heard this view and have video of teachers saying that to back up that claim. We also see this trend in society in general – let the professional make the decisions for us.

The second is a 180 degree change of direction by putting the parents in charge to choose the best of a number of systems for their child (which could included a “government school”, as C. Bradford Morgan put it). This is how most of society works still – parents making choices for their children (seems to have worked well for the last few hundred years). In fact, this used to be the norm up until the rise of the Progressive movement in the United States at the beginning of the last century. Then, such Progressive luminaries as John Dewey advocated for what has become our current “industrial style” system that become so union dominated. It may well be time that in order for our nation to educationally progress forward, we have to return back to letting those invested the most, the parents, make those decisions.

This is emblematic of the two polarizing political views now becoming more and more public – who knows what is best for society, its citizens, and the children? Is it Government, where it seems that our educated bureaucrats (assumed to be non-partisan in theory and rarely in practice) are making more and more “for the common good” as they insert themselves more and more into what used to be considered “private society”? Also, bureaucrats are deciding that they will make those decisions independently, regardless if empowered by actual law or not. We end up with Government by Regulation instead of by Legislation by our elected (and therefore, accountable) peers.

Or is it individual citizens, in their own “pursuit of Happiness”, making their own decisions for themselves with a Government sitting in the way back, and getting out of the way by enforcing and protecting our individual Rights and allowing the private sector to solve its own issues and problems?

Frankly, my take is this: the Bigger the Government, the smaller the citizen. The more that Government intervenes, the more that crowding out of private society happens. As that happens, the foundation of our Republic is weakened. I'd rather see Parents make the decision and my trust is with them. After all, as one looks across the nation, it is clear that our current system has severe problems that merely throwing more money to do more of the same invokes that popular definition of insanity. In this, Doug Lambert is correct: more choice, not less.

Continue reading "Rebuttal to C. Bradford Morgan" »

Posted by Skip at 08:38 PM | Permalink

Posted by Skip at 08:40 PM | Permalink

Posted by Skip at 08:37 PM | Permalink

Dear Editor:

Over the past few days we have seen some interesting letters in the papers, particularly Derek Tomlinson’s and Dale Dormody’s letters. Both claiming how the checks and balances and the processes are working in Gilford. This year the school budget did not go up dramatically and there were some staff cuts. But before they get hurt patting themselves on the back let me advise you that this did not happen auto-magically or because they were leading the crusade.

During Tomlinson’s tenure in town politics the school budget rose to its current $24 million plus figure while the school student population declined by over 20%. That’s a million dollars a year. The checks and balances were not working. I will also point out that Administration and staff costs far exceed comparable metrics to not only the private sector but also to similar school districts.

We are told by Mr. Dormody that he favors candidates that work for all of the taxpayers. I do have to agree with him on this. I must point out however that during my two years on the budget committee I rarely if ever saw him vote to contain costs. Neither has Phyllis Corrigan. One must assume that his vision of working for all taxpayers is to assure that everyone’s taxes will increase not decrease.

The reason that you see an ever so slow change in the right direction is because of the work that certain members of Gilford’s elective bodies who have stood up and taken the ridicule by refusing to go along to get along. They have pulled up the shades and allowed the sunlight in. These people are current Candidates for School Board, Mr. Doug Lambert and for re-election to the Budget Committee, David “Skip” Murphy.”

For this they get demonized and called “Radicals”, Extremists” and “Mudslingers”. One person’s mudslinger is another person’s whistle blower. I want honesty at all levels of government. We don’t always get that in Gilford nor is the will or the voter honored. I would also say that an educator that is seen gadding about the lakes region in a tee shirt that suspiciously looks like Che Guevara printed on it should not be calling anyone else a radical.

Even though the sun is starting to shine on the activities of our elected officials, we still see smoke and mirrors. Kurt Webber, current Chair of the School Board is also patting himself on the back with one hand. The other hand that you don’t see is working to assure increased costs in future years. What you didn’t see was the 4 year contract with guaranteed raises and a Lamborghini benefit package signed with our already highly compensated School Business / Assistant Superintendent in a time of recession. Why would you do this? This also insures that the death spiral of ever increasing legacy costs will continue and default budgets will increase too. Where do our kids benefit from this? Is he an appointee also?

I leave you with one more observation before you vote this year. The people who sit on the Budget Committee are all good people. Those that have connections to town or school employee’s rarely vote against cost issues. That is why I also am supporting Barbara Aichinger and Stuart Savage for the Budget Committee. They are proven conservatives in word and deed. They will work independently for all taxpayers.

Sincerely, David R Horvath, Sr.

Gilford, NH

Posted by Skip at 08:25 PM | Permalink

I have submitted the following to the local papers:

First, the School Board decided to flaunt the will of Gilford voters, who voted 2-1 to not have a new Superintendent (hiring one the day before the election). Then, the Board decided to not hold the Special Meeting as petitioned by Gilford residents because of this action (and in violation of NH law). Then at the Gilford Candidates Night, the current Chair and past Chair (Kurt Webber and Sue Allen, respectively) insisted simply by saving $11,000 on busing costs was a superb reason to start up full day kindergarten – again, showing complete disdain for Gilford voters who had previously voted NO (video at GilfordGrok.com). Kurt Webber has further doubled down by stating he had cut the School Board's budget (even though expenditures have grown) – and showing that the bureaucrat-ese of “Washington budgeting cuts” (where a “cut” = “increasing, but at a slower pace”) has been brought to Gilford.

Now we just had the taxpayer funded Superintendent willing to speak at a forum sponsored by the taxpayer funded Parks & Recs Director to “educate” residents on the tax cap petition (which has already been “not recommended” by his employers, the School Board). Although he claims ignorance of the RSA that prohibits this (lets assume to be true), just the idea that the School Board did not see the impropriety of this, RSA aside, speaks volumes.

Doug Lambert stood up against this by bringing it to the public's attention, citing the RSA. He also corrected the School Board's lawyer at the Deliberative Session (who read only the part of the RSA dealing the tax cap that put the School Board's position in a positive light) by reading the REST of the RSA that contradicted the lawyer's utterances (video on GilfordGrok.com). And yes, he is one of the Gilford residents who is using the only source of remedy available to citizens between elections by bringing the Superintendent hiring before a judge.

Fed up with this public malfeasance, Doug Lambert is now running to be on the School Board. His platform: full compliance with all laws, greater transparency in deliberations / actions, moving towards more accessibility, and forcing more budgetary openness. These are stances that I wholeheartedly endorse – as well as his stated stance of respecting the will of the voters of Gilford in all things.

Therefore, I am happy to endorse Doug Lambert to replace either Kurt Webber or Sue Allen. I ask for your vote for him (and only for him for one of the two three-year seats).

Posted by Skip at 12:17 PM | Permalink

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

Please note we are asking for your votes for:

• 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

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

that both of them chose to try to establish their bona fides as true blue conservatives.

Balderdash!

Margo tries this stunt here at about 4:28 into the video here.  Paraphrased (some), she says:

What is the difference between Gus and myself?  While we are both fiscal conservatives....I've had people from Doug Lambert to Skip Murphy to Dick Hickock actually, basically, say that to me in the past two years that I have been on the budget committee.

I fail to remember EVAH calling her a fiscal conservative.  Perhaps I may have; she's more conservative than Derek Tomlinson, but that's a rather low bar to step over.  I also point out that her claim to fiscal conservatism is not too well served by this post I did here "Not mine to give"; obviously she does believe that it is her job to recommend that it is her's to give where I wrote (and quoted Margo):

Town budget season is wrapping up all over NH; my hamlet is no exception. Last part of our job was to Recommend / NOT Recommend four Petition Warrant articles to fund charities with taxpayer monies (if that sounds like gobbledy-gook, see after the jump). Of COURSE, there are those that have no compunction about donating their fellow citizens tax money for charitable purposes - regardless of whether those citizens would normally support that charity.  One of my fellow Budgeteers tried to equate donating to these social services organizations with funding the Town's Fire Dept; after all, we pay for the latter's service and thus, fails to see any difference:

"Back in the day, our families used to provide this service but that doesn't exist anymore for most of us. So many of us will rely on these services at some point in our lifetime.  So I don't think it is like giving to  other charitable organizations which are kind of nice but you don't need them in your life."

The dirty secret why it doesn't exist is because we let it - it has become far easier let to of that responsibility and outsource the care of our families to society at large than do it ourselves. Before I get into the argument of why this is a straw-man argument (as well as being irrelevant)...

....What she fails to mention is significant:

First: The Fire Dept IS a town dept - we appropriate monies, and we control their expenditures.  The employees of the dept are under Town control - the Town Administrator and the Selectboard.  Not running right?  Correction applied - and there is accountability.

Two: These charitable groups / social services / non-governmental organizations do not report to the Town Administration OR to the voters - we have NO idea where the money can really go OR apply corrections if badly spent.  In fact, there is NO accountability and therefore, not the "same" as the Fire Dept.

Third: she implicitly argues for Bigger Government via "scope creep" (e.g., "our families used to provide this service") - it is easier to just let Govt do just one more thing - it's a great idea!...

...For me, it is the height of hubris that a politician should force fellow taxpayers to pay for charities that they might not otherwise support.  Charity by Government is simply taxes collected by force and given to others - a redistribution of wealth by politicians.

No, I would, overall, consider Margo, while being a very nice lady, a moderate.  A LOT of people are now claiming to be fiscally conservative this year solely in that the political winds have changed (re: TEA Party movement).

I will also add this - Given the vitriol that Alice Boucher and Evans Juris have shown to both Gus and Connie, their endorsement of you in the papers today does not help. I will never forget the "queen bee being ignored" look and speech from Ms. Boucher as Gus and Connie overrode her wishes in do the right thing and fire Juris.  Talk about madder than hell that her high perch as Chair made no difference in the Right Two doing the Right thing.

I still chuckle over the imagery.

No, Margo, you are not the Biggest Conservative in the race.  While Gus is not as conservative as I, he is more conservative as you.

*****

Dale tries that same "cover me as a fiscal conservative" during his part of the video.  Real conservatives don't have to quibble about definitions of who is and who isn't a conservative; they just are. 

Dale is not and is trying, as many Liberal Progressives have done before, to "turn" or shade the language.  

He then tried it in his Letter to the Editor today in the Citizen:

I first want to thank the voters of Gilford for the privilege of serving on the town's Budget Committee over the past three years. This committee has considerable powers over the town and school budgets, and it is critical that its members be thorough, balanced, and open to the needs and opinions of all Gilford residents.

I am asking for your vote for a second term on the Budget Committee because I believe I help provide this thorough, balanced approach.

From the Liberal side!

I have participated fully and regularly in all committee functions, and have worked with others to conduct thorough and demanding reviews of all departmental budgets. I led the effort to provide more detailed information on the ballot by requiring that vote totals are shown alongside recommendations from the Budget Committee and the Selectmen. I will continue to push for fair and balanced budget reviews.

While the Budget Committee has the right and the responsiblity to conduct a tough final review and to make any budget revisions they deem necessary, they also have a responsibility to demonstrate a complete understanding of the ramifications of their changes, and to be as specific as possible about why the changes were made.

But he doesn't talk to that.

Finally, I have been and will remain a strong supporter of school athletics and the small group of non-governmental agencies that appear on the ballot each year.

A true fiscal conservative believes that charity is an individual act.  It is not, as Dale believes, a communitarianism that all should give to certain charities regardless of individual freedom of choice.

My support of these departments or line items does not mean that their budgetary requests are treated any differently.

His actions belie his words - the Library has ALWAYS been that which he has fought for the most.

What it means is that I approach their budget requests with an open mind, and with an understanding that we represent the entire community of Gilford residents - many of whom expect and in some cases rely heavily on the services that these departments and institutions provide.

I have identified myself as a conservative, and have voted accordingly, all of my life. My brand of conservatism is one that respects and recognizes the value of differing opinions.

Dale, you can identify yourself as a conservative all day long.  The actual truth?  You can't get theah from where you are!  Redefining conservatism to once again fit your campaign is a schlock move.

Remember folks, this is the guy who basically was against the BudComm before he wanted to be on it.  To wit:

• that he and his wife signed the Petition Warrant a few years ago to GET RID of the Budget Committee
• He campaigned the first time on a platform that he would recuse himself from his wife's department (she is the Chief Librarian) budget.  Then it devolved to just not voting on anything dealing with his wife's salary.
• Upon being elected, he grandly announced at the first meeting that he would vote on anything he wanted to and that there was nothing we could do to stop him.  Legally, he was right.  Morally, he broke his campaign promises to all of his supporters.

Fiscal Conservative - what a crock!  While he *might* have once or twice voted for something that might have reduced spending, I cannot, for the life of me, remember (and given that it is Dale, I should have!). 

Frankly, he has been in opposition the entire time on the BudComm to the true fiscal conservatives on the BudComm since arriving - and those would include myself, Doug Lambert, Sue Green, Terry Stewart for starters.

And Gus, when he was the rep from the Selectboard.

Posted by Skip at 12:11 PM | Permalink

Update:  we may be partisan, but we try to be accurate as well.  I received this from Scott Dunn, the Town Administrator and promised to put it up at my earliest convenience:

Hi Skip,

I just wanted to set the record straight after reading the Grok today.

In the final version of the M.O.U. pertaining to plowing, the “Emergency Lane” declaration was specifically deleted at the request of Chairman Benavides.  This was also announced at the public hearing.

Thought you might like to know……

Scott

Consider it corrected and done.

=============================================================

GilfordGrok is happy to announce its recommendations / endorsements.  Please note that we have only mentioned those positions that are being contested by more than one person:

Some quick takes:

• While I have had a few issues with some of Gus's votes (e.g., the most recent one over plowing the Gilford Community Church parking lot - declaring it a "Fire Emergency lane" was the wrong thing to do, I do see Gus as the more conservative member of the Selectboard at this time.  I believe that he did the right thing, along with Connie Grant, in firing Evans Juris; as a result, we have a far better person in that role (heh! - one that DOES know how to turn on a laptop!).  Gus has had the taxpayers' in mind as new policies have been rolled out that will save the taxpayers money far into the future, such as replacing the COLA with merit raises and having employees increasing their share of their healthcare costs (just as we in the private sector are having to do). He also was instrumental in starting the process to have the Town's expenses put out on the website for all of the townfolk to see.  Please vote for Gus!
  

• This was a bit harder, but our take for Moderator is for Sandra.  She has served in many capacities, she knows the issues, and she knows the "players" and the townfolk.  Further, we believe that she is a better fit overall for the community.  Heh!  She also, from years of practice, has the skill set that can prove to be helpful for when the Deliberative Session may turn out to have folks similar in temperment to those she oversaw for years...Please vote for Sandra!

• I believe that the Budcomm has done a good job over the last few years; I no longer do the "cringe dance with the semi-annual envelope" when the Town sends out tax bills.  However, that oversight cannot go lax.  I am not convinced that better times are around the corner as national policies are racking up stratospheric debts and less than an anemic job outlook, those in control in Concord are continuing their beat down on small businesses and adding new fees and taxes in desperation to keep their 30% higher budget expenditures from causing them more political grief.  And the County isn't helping lately either.  Thus, it is our thought that Chan, Pat, and Dave will be best at maintaining a lid on budget increases. While I don't know Pat personally, I have spoken to more than a few folks that do - he comes highly recommended.  While Chan may not be AS conservative as I, he belongs on the BudComm.  And knowing Dave as I do, and having read his many Letters to the Editor over the past few years, I know that he will put the taxpayers first.  Please vote for Chan, Pat, and Dave!

• I have had my spats Derek while he was the School Board rep when I was first elected - especially over the inclusion of Football into the budget AFTER we were all reminded that the original sponsors had promised that taxpayers would never have to pay for that program.  I believe that his emphasis to push programs forward, regardless of the cost, needs to be countered.  I also believe in term limits - time for voters to implement such and that is one reason for endorsing Conrad.  On the other hand, I have known Don for a while now, having listened to his "back to basic" messages at several TEA Party meetings.  While they were on the topic of Government, I also agree with his campaign tag line: "Basics First".  I have often reported on the NECAP scores here; until our students (and a vast majority of them!) have mastered the fundamentals, the District should not be moving to new methodologies.  Frankly, Derek's comment during the Q&A period about "new math" was ingenious - certainly most would agree that the current methods have not worked lately and the test scores show that.  Back to Basics?  Indeed!  Please vote for Conrad and Don!

I will have more to say concerning Dale Dormody and Margo Weeks tomorrow and why I have made the decisions above.

With respect to the School Board Warrants: Coming Real Soon!

With respect to the Town Warrants (non-Zoning issue ones): Coming Real Soon!

Posted by Skip at 10:00 PM | Permalink

2010 Gilford Candidate Night - School Board candidates make their case for your votes: Conrad Hans, Don Pangburn, Derek Tomlinson:

Posted by Skip at 08:49 PM | Permalink

2010 Gilford Candidate Night - Budget Committee candidates make their case for your votes: Margo Weeks, Gus Benevides, Joe Hoffman:

Posted by Skip at 08:40 PM | Permalink

2010 Gilford Candidate Night - Budget Committee candidates make their case for your votes: Dave Horvath, Mark Correy, Dale Dormody:

I spoke to Dale "Chan" Eddy tonight by phone: his plan was to have been there but a family emergency called him to Tilton and was unable to make it back to Gilford in time.

Posted by Skip at 08:31 PM | Permalink

2010 Gilford Candidate Night - Q&A Session - candidate for Supervisor of the Checklist.  Connie Moses was the only candidate that showed up for any of the open slots for Supervisor of the Checklist:

Posted by Skip at 08:28 PM | Permalink

2010 Gilford Candidate Night - Q&A Session - candidates and audience members ask questions of the other candidates.  No, there was not much time - I was only able to ask one question about the NECAP scores of the candidates for School Board; I had a raft of questions for the others as well.  After the meeting, a lot of others were wishing it had gone longer (Connie had a whole LIST of questions!).

This also has Joe being escorted out of the meeting by Steve Colchord as well...

Posted by Skip at 08:23 PM | Permalink

Yup, right on time - Joe Hoffman decides to be Joe and gets tossed.  Any analogy to "I paid for this microphone" are completely random (and accidental):

I agree with the statement that I heard "we'll all miss him when he's gone".  Wishes for good health for this 80 year old (and the 'Grok does wonder what WOULD happen if he got elected as Moderator)...

Posted by Skip at 07:41 PM | Permalink

Town meeting time here in NH brings the political musical chair(s) time as well.  Here's the list of the players for the contested positions:

Board of Selectmen:

• Gus Benevides (current Chair)
• Joe Hoffman
• Margo Weeks (current Chair of the School Board)
  

Moderator:

• Dennis Corrigan
• Joe Hoffman
• Sandra McGonagle

Budget Committee:

• Mark Correy (incumbent)
  
• Dale Dormody (incumbent)
• Dale "Chan" Eddy
• Dave Horvath
• Philip "Pat" LaBonte

Library Trustee (one opening):

• Steve Geer
  
• Tracy Petrozzi (incumbent)

Supervisor of the Checklist (three openings):

Six year term (one opening):

• Irene LaChance
• Mary Villuame

Two year (one opening)

• Connie Moses (incumbent)

School Board (two openings):

• Conrad Hanf
• Rae Mellow-Andrews
• Don Pangburn
• Derek Tomlinson (long term incumbent)

Posted by Skip at 11:40 AM | Permalink