GilfordGrok

It is such a pleasure to read the excellent Laconia Daily Sun responses to Ed Allard’s fictional editorial on the need for the proposed government provided health care initiative. I do give Mr. Allard and his liberal Democrat friends’ credit for consistently applying Aldous Huxley’s” Brave New World” theory of stating a lie enough times so that it eventually becomes the truth. Liberals constantly make these claims about how other nations are so much better at providing social services and accepting “progressive” change in the family structure. Wouldn’t it just be easier for liberals to go live in those places instead of manipulating the laws of this once great country to force these unwelcome changes onto the rest of us?

I am not a health care expert however I travel enough (to many countries) to note some comparative observations about our health care system. For starters, our system is already heavily embedded in socialism that essentially eliminates any competition. Remember when the OPA tried to open shop as a totally private business? They were only allowed to do so if they agreed to operate under the umbrella of the socialist hub of health care we call LRGH. If LRGH had to treat patients without insurance, so would the OPA. Then, Jean Shaheen (as Governor) shut out competition for health insurance providers in NH. If Mr. Allard wants to find someone to blame for those obscene Insurance company profits, he can go speak with the newest NH Democrat US Senator that he supported. Wouldn’t competitive options create lower prices for NH businesses? Or how about this; wouldn’t it be nice if everyone could simply go to their local Walgreens, Rite Aid or CVS pharmacy to receive routine health exams? Do you think they might even provide the exams for free to attract consumers to shop in their stores? If allowed, wouldn’t these solutions based on true capitalism save real money in the system? Does Mr. Allard actually think Private entities can compete with big government when government gets to make unfair rules? If that is the new definition of capitalism, we’re in more trouble than I thought!

It is true that working families are paying high insurance premiums because of the uninsured but I don’t think that is even a fraction of problem. Working families aren’t just paying for their own premiums. Don’t working families also pay health insurance for Congress members, Local, State, County and Federal employees, including teachers, fire fighters, law enforcement and retired government workers? Thanks to Obama, we are now on the hook to pay the auto union benefits too. If socialism is your preference; why not this solution? What if EVERY LEGAL American citizen was required to only have this new government health insurance program? Affectively, this would eliminate employee/employer health insurance premiums and also shift a significant portion of your property tax burden onto a nationally broad based tax. If working families and small businesses are going to get shafted with paying for their own private coverage plus government employees plus Obama government motors plus this new government health care program, why not spread the pain to everyone under one system? This solution is actually the system for those other countries Mr. Allard spoke of. Additionally, they don’t treat non citizens in other countries unless they can prove payment nor should we. Here in America, it’s never going to happen because all those government & union workers (Obama supporters) are NEVER replacing their gold plated coverage for any new crappy health care program they will be required to pay into. They wouldn’t even pay a tax on the free health insurance we provide to them as “compensation”. There’s no way no how they are going to join a “fair for all” system like the rest of us plebes.  

Once again, this is not about doing the right thing for all American citizens. It’s about liberal Democrats taking more money from working families and taking care of themselves first. No wonder Obama says we can’t wait any longer. Unlike the congress that is eagerly signing any legislation Obama wants (without even reading it), the American people are actually discovering exactly how bad this Bill stinks for working families. 

Posted by Terry S. at 08:59 PM | Permalink

"Howe said that this was the first time in his 30-plus years at The Citizen that the paper had been kept away from the site of a major news story for so long."

And THAT is the big story at the moment involving the flood damage at the new Gilford Middle School. As reported by the Citizen in both news stories and a blog posting by Citizen Editor and General Manager John Howe, the news media has been banned from being able to view the interior of the building and the damage caused by last weekend's pipe failure. This is noteworthy for several reasons, number one of which is the question posed in the headline of this post--

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

After all, what is the big deal of letting the local newspapers get a glimpse of both the damages and the no-doubt good work being conducted by the contractors doing the cleanup? Why would the administration and school board endure such negative publicity over a simple accident?

Or was it an accident? Here are my questions:

• Was there any foul play involved-- either involving students, or employees? Is there a way to keep track of who comes and goes and when?

• What kind of pipe broke, anyway? Was it a supply pipe, or a sprinkler system pipe-- you know, what they want to force into new home and biz building construction with the onorous new fire code they're pushing in next week's vote? (Article 8-- VOTE NO!!!!) And how could tens of thousands of gallons of water get unleashed without some sort of alarm activation?

• How DID the pipe break? Was it frozen? Did it get banged? Was crap being stored in a manner that could damage piping? (A look through the windows visible from the outside  facing the sports fields has long revealed piles of junk, paper, and other unsightly bric-a-brac.) Could something have fallen over? Was shoddy workmanship involved? Pipes don't normally just break.

• What is the normal security and inspection process for this facility? Given it's the most valuable piece of real estate the Town owns, and that it is supposed to serve as a public shelter in the event of emergencies, shouldn't regular rounds be performed?

• Why were the computers ON THE FLOOR? And, as reported by the media, CARPETED FLOORS at that. As a member of the committee that came up with the plan for the renovation/construction of this facility, I distinctly recall the major dust-up we had over carpeting in computer labs. Why are these particular rooms carpeted? So the Technology coordinator can wear her flip-flops? According to my son, who attends Bishop Brady, the computers in their labs are all suspended below the workdesks, providing for safety from flooding above, or water on the floor. Probably they care more about their stuff there than we do at our government school-- after all, Gilford purchases sh*tloads of computers year after year with little argument. Why take care of 'em when we'll always get more?

John Howe, writing in his blog is dead-on regarding this issue:

we were denied access to the building, and have been forced to shoot pictures only on the outside. I contacted the Superintendent of Schools personally, and was told we are not entitled to gain access at this time. He said there would be a press conference on Friday.

This does not settle well with the newspaper because we believe the public has a right to know and a right to see what it looks like now, not after it has been cleaned up.

There may be initial concerns about safety, but after three days, that can't possibly be the problem any more. Having been at reporting for 30 years, I've never seen anything like this. Our motivation is to help voters know what is happening in their community.

Indeed. keep up the good work, John. Inquiring minds want to know. After all, it's OUR building that we are PAYING for. We have a right to know...

Posted by Doug at 09:14 AM | Permalink

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

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

...especially what has been going on here in town.  Certainly, with the exception of the Library budget (on which I have previously commented), the process of going through the Town's budget has fairly uncomplicated this time around. After all, when the overall budget is basically flat compared to last year, what's not to like?  Nothing is being cut,  services are being funded, and the Selectmen and the Administration took the time to prioritize the needs of the town without going into the "wants".  Fortunately, insurance and fuels are trending in the right direction.  Good job, as the overall assessment of the town was down (which means that there is less taxable property, which sent the tax rate up).  Thus, with two legs of the stool going in the wrong way, it was good to see the third (and the most easy for ordinary citizens to control) stay relatively stable.

Back at the beginning of the month, the School Board approved Dr. DiMinico's plan to downsize the budget by 0.66% that incorporated cuts to the educational staff (elementary assistant principal, lessening of the elementary guidance by 0.4 FTE). Fortunately, Dr. DiMinico has done the right thing in recognizing that with the declining enrollment, the current economic times, this is not the time to be asking the taxpayers for more.  I actually applaud him for the philosophy of "time to take the taxpayers into account and protect them".

And of course, the teachers are all up in arms with 58 or so teachers / guidance staff signing a petition that said:

"We believe the elimination of the Assistant Principal position and the reduction of guidance services at the Elementary School undermines the commitment that we make to every child that enters our school.  Our Assistant Principal and guidance counselors provide direct support to many of these children, their families, and their teachers....This support allows all of our children to become successful....With the current economic downturn, we can expect an increase in student and family needs.

That's nice... 

My concern was, when I ran for the Budget Committee, was for the ordinary taxpayer.  And that taxpayer, I still believe, expects that they should be able to take care of themselves without having to rely on government. Unless of course, Big Government (and those that believe that Big Government is the only way to a successful life) decides that it continually needs more and more of said taxpayer's money.  It is very easy to justify this position and that position, and adding yet one, two, or more services or expanding existing ones.  Yet, is a government that does everything for us a good government?

Russ Armstrong said that the role of government was "to care for people". Now, that may have been the role that FDR first espoused in articulating his Second Bill of Rights. 

However, that is dead wrong and is not what the Founding Fathers thought.  Instead, in reading the Constitution and the real Bill of Rights, the concept of the Founding Fathers was the protection of individual rights FROM government.   And that is what government should do.  We seem to have strayed a bit (I'D say!) from that truth.

With that said, I disagree that an Assistant Principal position and downsizing (a bit) a guidance position is automatically going to cause children to fail - that's not how it works, folks. 

The problem is that it seems that the purpose of the schools are for the benefit of the taxpayers and their children - somehow, I get the feeling that the teachers sometimes believe it for their benefit (especially when I go to the national websites for the NEA and the AFT and see what their platforms are all about.  Go ahead - it's not just "for the children") instead.  At the individual teacher level?  Sure.  At the union level?  Not so much - unions exist for one reason - and often it is not just for the union members either.

Anyways, I digress but I'll leave it at this.  Last year at the Deliberative session for the SAU, I heard one of the teachers (I believe it was one of the union folks) state "the numbers may be going down, but the needs will always be going up!".

And that seems to sum it up - faced with an economic downturn that seems to rival that of President Jimmy Carter (no, we are a LONG way from another Depression at this point), there seems to be a reluctance to give in just a tad. Seemingly, there will always be a justification to never cut the size of government...

Government can never meet all of everyone's needs - nor should it.

Posted by Skip at 08:45 PM | Permalink

From Joane Jacobs:

Banning sugar-sweetened drinks at Maine high schools didn’t affect students’ consumption, a study found.

The study compared four high schools that eliminated soda and other sugar-sweetened drinks from cafeterias and vending machines with three schools that did not take such measures.

Researchers found that over one school year, students in both groups of schools cut down on their average daily intake of sugary drinks — but there was no evidence that the school soda bans led to greater reductions.

It turns out that teens do most of their soda slurping on their own time. Those who can’t get a Coke at lunch will drink one after school.

Sometimes, just assuming that the conventional wisdom is correct can prove one wrong....

Posted by Skip at 05:07 PM | Permalink

In no particular order (as I'm a bit behind here):

• Nice to see that the overall hike in the Operational budget (i.e., no warrants just yet) was minimal - 0.36%.  However, I asked the question "Does that amount include the last year's warrants?"  Hmmm, small problem - that gives the budget a lot of headroom for "actual growth without numerical growth" as there were a number of warrants last year.

• That said, who is going to play "find the boots" (from that old corporate expense report joke)?

• Glad to see we got an budget EXCEL spreadsheet this year - makes some things much easier.

• Am glad to see that the Potter Hill Road - the unused library property - will be bidded out (or, at least it looks like it so far).

• Interesting time at the latest Selectmen meeting (yup!  Full room with overflow!).  It seems that whenever Joe shows up, an officer to escort him out of the meeting is soon to be seen.  Interesting too, that it seems that the Faye cousins seems to allude that not much of an effort has been expended in finding the heirs.  And it certainly looks like they were ticked.  I have my doubts that this issue of "now what do we do with the old Library" will neither be quiet or cheap.  My thought?  Since the Library Trustees decided to build the new building and that they knew about ramifications of moving out, perhaps they should be on the hook for the cost, rather than the Town taxpayers?  Some will most likely take umbrage at this notion, for all kinds of reasons, but shouldn't everything be on the table?  The Gilford Steamer 10/16 editorial labeled "Library Deceit?" was rather amusing - and pretty much spot on.

• Speaking of the Library, looks like from Terry's post, somebody over there has their knickers in a knot.  I have to admit, I burst out laughing when I saw the graphic on Doug's post - and I agree with its sentiments.  Scope Creep is one of the biggest killers of projects - you start out with one thing and it just keeps growing until it is out of control.  Books, magazines, literary things - certainly part of a library mix.  A lot of the "projects" that I see, however, should be somewhere else.  WHY should electronic gaming be part of the library mission?  Or are they trying to turn themselves into THE Community Center (which I thought was supposed to be the domain of the new privately owned building going up next door?)? Unless they want to be part of the Parks and Recs budget?  And frankly, I don't believe that the proper role of local government for either department should include pasttimes that are better served at home - and not at taxpayer expense.
• Well, football made it into the budget, and here, like clockwork, will be hockey.  I'm just dying to know when the Wavemaker swim team is going to make a pitch to get funded - pool, locker rooms, and lifeguard all included....

• Ames Farm?  Their "neighbors" just making it seem that they just want to run them out of business (or at least hamstring them sufficiently so as to hasten that day).  Maybe it's just the curmudgeon in me (hey, I'm getting only enough!), but they knew about the Ames operation well before they moved into the area.  It seems to be the same thing as when people move into town and then complain about the plane traffic.  Or further west, move into a brand new subdivision, the wind shifts, and then they learn about the pig farm a up the road aways - and demand that the farm be shut down even though it's been there for decades.  My vote is for the Ames property.  Or if you don't like it, OFFER TO BUY the Ames property outright instead of "taking by regulation".

• Juris lawsuit - I am not privy to ANY special or inside info.  That said, it seems to me like a play for $.  So far, unless he has video or audio recordings to the contrary (which may or may not be legal), he's only got a he said / they said case.  Like I blogged a while ago, it still seems to be a case of a bad political bet gone bad.  Yes, Juris and Boucher seemed to play the game so that John did not get elected (and then he may have led the charge for a firing), but publicly slagging your bosses on the radio and in the print media is not a long term job security strategy.  First Amendment?  Seems like they made no attempt to stop the actual speech, but it doesn't mean that they have to listen to it....

• It will be interesting to see how the taxpayers take to the new Police Station - I'm thinking that this will make it onto the ballot in March.
  

Posted by Skip at 08:19 PM | Permalink

That's what Chief Markland was quoted as saying in the Headline article of the Laconia Sun:

"Chief says no Gilford officer has been injured by Taser"

The article went on to say:

Markland reacted much more sharply to a posting by activist Doug Lambert on his blog GilfordGrok this weekend where he stated that "a Gilford police officer was somewhat seriously injured while certifying for the use of a TASER by a TASER" and asked "why the cover up?"  In reply the chief said "I'm not acknowledging his (Lambert's) charges except to say that they are false, baseless and insulting."

Well, when I read the story, I was struck by nuances in the article.  Not really any outright denials (read the story for yourself) but an impression could made that nothing happened.  Sort of a non-denial denial. 

As it turns out, in denial.  Being puzzled, I went to the the last Selectmens' meeting, Sun in hand, and asked if someone had indeed been injured in or around TASERS.  Heck, why not ask the Town's leaders?  Our new Town Administrator, Scott Dunn, said he'd get me an answer.

And so he has, via the Town Attorney (emphasis mine):

“the town has an obligation to disclose the details of the incident that led to the possible injury, without revealing the name of the officer.  Events since the incident with respect to the officer’s progress, duty and medical condition are private matters and should not be disclosed.”

Accordingly, I can confirm that a police officer was recently injured and that the injury occurred while participating in a TASER training exercise.

I do appreciate his response!  It kinda leads credence to what Doug had in his post.  It also kinda goes against the nuances in the Sun's Headline article:

"...false, baseless and insulting...."

Two vs. One.  It is voting time, right?  Who's right?  Seems like one was demanding an apology; should it now be another (gee, I love nuances...)?

Oh, I guess I still have questions as I again am detecting "careful parsing" of words and phrases:

• What is the nature of the injury (without revealing his current progress, duty, or present medical condition)?  Spinal, limb, neurological, muscle, other?
• Was being tased the root cause of the injury?  Other?
• If so, is the injury solely due to the tasing, or was the injury a result of a secondary event (Example - as a result of being tased, did he do a face plant onto the corner of the table in front of him)?
• Will this increase the cost of our liability insurance in any way?  Cost of health insurance?
• What specific laws or regulations (Federal, state, or local) govern the above statement (note: just saying HIPAA doesn't really answer the question).
  

Why do I ask? Simple - if the town may be on the hook for substantial hospitalization or rehabilitation expenses, I would imagine that it should be a budgetary item open for discussion.

The article mentioned a Safety Committee - will that be a publicly noticed meeting?

Posted by Skip at 07:53 PM | Permalink

While I acknowledge the fact that Gilford has an energy committee, and the PD has purchased a more fuel efficient car for the Chief, I see little to no evidence that our town is doing anything, especially when it comes to vehicle usage, to save on fuel costs. From the view of the average citizen, everything looks like it's the same as it was when gas was a couple of bucks a gallon. WHY are we running the big Ford paddy-wagon van around on patrol? Why aren't the PD's SUVs parked till winter?

And of course, there is the FD's red F350 gas guzzling pickup truck. You know, the one that's constantly spotted at the various ATMs about the area, sandwich shops, coffee houses, and other such destinations. Obviously these are important missions, but with the price of gas, maybe the town should by a small fuel efficient car for those on the town clock to use for such purposes.

Click here to read the Citizen story about the energy usage changes and progress made in OTHER towns in the area. But I guess we're Gilford, and we have money to burn...

Posted by Doug at 07:33 AM | Permalink

Posted by Terry S. at 10:37 PM | Permalink

Saw this post over at EIAOnline:

America loves its public school teachers. So much so that it continues to hire legions of them while growth in the number of students continues to peter out. An Education Intelligence Agency analysis of the latest U.S. Census Bureau figures shows that while K-12 enrollment grew only 2.45% between 2001 and 2006, the K-12 teacher force grew by 5.71% over the same period.

I took snippets from the table found here to create this:

EDUCATION INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
Current Spending Statistics of Public Elementary-Secondary School Systems for 2005-06
State Rankings in Enrollment, Teachers, Per-Pupil Spending, and Spending on Compensation 

I see that while NH enrollment has dropped 3.56% since 2000, teacher employment and compensation and per-pupil compensation has gone way up (note: inflation has been between 2-3% or so for each year since 2000).

Kids down, teachers up.  

Since I saw this after the SAU closed, I can't fill in the relevant number for Gilford, but it would be interesting..... Oh, and in case you were wondering where the data came from:

Notes: 1) Data derived from U.S. Census Bureau Public Education Finances 2006, issued
                April 2008, Rankings & Estimates, NEA Research, December 2007, and
                Digest of Education Statistics 2002, National Center for Education Statistics.                           
    2) "Compensation" includes salaries, wages and fringe benefit contributions on
                behalf of employees.    

Posted by Skip at 06:14 PM | Permalink

"I have no agenda," Hayes declared. 

.

However, he suggested that "it appears that decisions are not being made and when they are, it is with a look over the shoulder to the Budget Committtee.

.

"The Budget Committee doesn't run the town," he said.

The Selectmen, in Mr. Hayes' opinion, have spent too much time actually worrying about the impact of their decisions on the taxpayers instead of just getting on with the business of increasing both taxes and spending.

Could it simply be that he's still sore because that body didn't pick him to fill an open seat when he applied two years ago?

Posted by Doug at 09:55 AM | Permalink

The Gunstock Commissioners recognize the need to raise capital to fund future improvements to keep Gunstock competitive in our markets. 

"explore a partnership with a private entity (or entities) that would work with management, the commissioners, and elected county officials to come up with a strategic plan that would ensure the growth and survival of this unique asset."

Left alone --- doing business as usual --- is a risky and potentially devastating strategy for Gunstock in light of the serious issues the mountain faces. Closing should not be considered an option:  Gunstock generates between $45 to 50 million into the Lakes Region economy annually and provides jobs for over 500 people.  It is a key economic engine to the region.

.
Gunstock needs, like any  21st century business, to grow and adapt to the challenges of the real world and the marketplace today. A truly high-end, first class, 4-season resort doesn’t exist this close to the Boston market. Most all major ski areas have adopted a formula that utilizes real estate as a part of their over all revenue stream to succeed.

.
The Gunstock Commissioners are best suited to facilitate this process and protect the interests of the county.

Posted by Doug at 08:34 PM | Permalink

Posted by Doug at 08:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

From the Gilford Steamer:

First-year committee member Dale Dormody said that he hoped the same level of decorum was maintained "outside the meeting room as well as inside."

Same as he's said before - all but a campaign promise...and the result is? 

From the Citizen:

"The long and short is I am here to ask you for more time to allow for the staffing of the energy committee," said Dale Dormody.

"I think you have put the cart before the horse, when the selectmen have not adopted the committee," said Alice Boucher, chair of the Board of Selectmen, adding, "We are the three that will decide when and how the committee will be formed."

...but back to saying how he wishes to have things run...before he runs for it...

Requesting at least 30 more days for applications to be received, Dormody also raised some points about weaknesses he found with the board's attempt to solicit applicants.

...he found fault with the BudCom during the campaign...now finding fault with the Selectmen?

Naw, he must have been misquoted.  Let's find out from his website:

The three Selectmen - Gus Benavides, Connie Grant, and Alice Boucher - apparently felt that the applications received to date met this standard, though it is unclear whether their decisions were based on any personal knowledge of the applicants and their qualifications.

Committee members, as chosen by the Board of Selectmen, are: Doug Lambert, Chan Eddy, Howard Epstein, Gino Crecco, Bill Knightly, and Patrick McKenna.

Guess not - another possible swipe at the Selectmen?  Doesn't seem like he likes those appointed so far by the Board either...

Question - how does he know that the applicants DON'T meet the criteria?  Has he asked? Psst...try putting in an application first.... might increase credibility.....

"There seems to be some hesitation for people to put their heads above the line because some boards out there, who shall remain nameless, have been somewhat contemptuous in the past," said Dormody, in a veiled reference to disputes among members of the budget committee.

...now casting aspersions towards his fellow BudComm members?

Kinda sounds divisive to me...

Posted by Skip at 07:30 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

A Connecticut company testing for wind power potential and impacts on the 24,000-acre Phillips Brook property in Coos County said it is looking at developing a 100-megawatt windpark by 2009. The 33 to 67 turbines -- each about 400 feet high -- would be spaced just over 1,000 feet apart.

Meanwhile Tillotson Corporation, owners of The Balsams Grand Resort in Dixville Notch, is looking at a smaller field of wind turbines to the north of Phillips Brook on its North Sanguinary Ridge, said Richard Harris, spokesman.

The article further reports that thus far there is no opposition to the project. If built in the range as proposed, the electricity generated will supply power to 16,500 homes with 33 turbines and as many as 33,500 if 67 are erected.

I still think Belknap County should be looking into wind power of our own. We have the mountains. We have the wind. We have the need. The question is, do we have the foresight?

Posted by Doug at 08:36 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Petitioners assert that the Chair of the Belkap County Convention & administrative assistant violated NH's Right-to-Know law on Monday, July 23rd.

Every citizen during the regular or business hours of all such bodies or agencies, and on the regular business premises of such bodies or agencies, has the right to inspect all public records, including minutes of meetings of the bodies or agencies, and to make memoranda, abstracts, and photographic or photostatic copies of the records or minutes so inspected, except as otherwise prohibited by statute or RSA 91-A:5.

 Each public body or agency shall, upon request for any public record reasonably described, make available for inspection and copying any such public record within its files when such records are immediately available for such release.

LAWMAKERS HAVE BECOME LAWBREAKERS.

Continue reading "Second RTK suit filed in Sheriff replacement flap in less than four weeks..." »

Posted by Doug at 01:24 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"the violation of the specific command of RSA 91-A is plain and indisputable. The county delegation should have known that a secret ballot vote in a public session violated that Right-to-Know law on its face."

Posted by Doug at 01:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

 1. Conduct research on methods to reduce greenhouse gas (ghg) emissions.
 2. Conduct research on methods to reduce overall energy usage, encourage conservation, improve efficiency, and seek alternative environmentally-friendly, renewable sources of energy whenever feasible for the town and school district.
 3. Seek to coordinate the activities of unofficial bodies organized for similar purposes.
 4. Keep a spreadsheet of resources available on related topics.
 5. Investigate available technology and software to assist in the creation of an overall energy usage plan, with monitoring and analyzing capabilities.
 6. Recommend to the Board of Selectmen (and School Board) specific programs necessary to implement the action plan.
 7. Research funding sources to implement the action plan.
 8. Keep accurate records of its meetings and actions.
 9. File an annual report with the Town Clerk to be included in the city’s annual report. Any savings (expenses) realized through the GEC’s recommendations will be included, recognizing some figures may be estimates.
 10. Attend events, conferences and meetings, as necessary, to develop and retain contact with organizations and agencies working on similar programs.
 11. Organize or participate in any activity necessary to further implement the action plan.

Posted by Doug at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

    [Cross-posted at GraniteGrok]

Letter to the Editor,
 
After reading the Citizen's article, "Judge won't block Belknap County Sheriff appointee" and Laconia Daily Sun's article, "Judge won't stop Wiggin from becoming sheriff but wants time to determine if process was proper", it appeared obvious to me that there's some confusion between a "public officer" and a "public employee".

.

In the Laconia Daily Sun it says that,

"Mohl interrupted to point out the Convention could have treated filling the vacancy as making an appointment or hiring an employee and, while complying with the Right -to-Know law, held all its proceedings in non-public session.  "Given that they could have done that, if I'm right," he asked, "what's the harm of doing part of it by secret ballot in public session?"  

In the Citizen it says,

"Mohl did say that if the process was an appointment, as Lambert and Tardif contend, the delegation would have been well within their rights to enter a nonpublic session for the vote." 

The position of Belknap County Sheriff is that of a public officer as defined in "TITLE LXIII ELECTIONS Chapter 661 vacancies among public officers elected at state elections"  "RSA 661:9 County Officers."  Officers are elected positions like, City Councilors, Selectmen, County Delegation, County Sheriff, Governor, etc. these are not employees.    The Right-to Know Law RSA 91-A "TITLE VI PUBLIC OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Chapter 91-A Access to public records and meetings Section 91-A:3 Nonpublic Sessions."  Section II says what matters may be acted on in NONPUBLIC SESSION.  Section II. (b) says, "THE HIRING OF ANY PERSON AS A PUBLIC EMPLOYEE."  The title of 91-A "Public Officers" and "Employees" makes a distinction between the two.   Section II (b) doesn't included Public Officers because they are either elected, or appointed to an elective position when a vacancy occurs.  BELKNAP COUNTY SHERIFFS ARE NOT HIRED. 
 
 
David Gammon
Laconia, NH

Posted by Doug at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

.

[This is also posted at GraniteGrok]

.

Friday was the hearing for the Right-to-Know suit filed by me and former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif under NH's Right-to-Know law (RSA91-A). (Click here to read a prior posting with the details and here for the Citizen newspaper's reporting on the matter) As expected, our elected representatives vigorously defended their actions instead of simply dropping back and doing the right thing in compliance with the law. You know-- default in the direction of openness. Instead, it's time to circle the wagons...

.

One of the things we asked the court for was to deny the assumption of the Sheriff's position scheduled for Monday, July 9th based on our contention that the secret ballot used in an open meeting by the Belknap County Convention was illegal. Unfortunately, the judge decided that no harm would come from this happening, no matter what he ultimately rules on our overall case. While he's right that the matter is one of process versus whether the person is suited for the job, which nobody questions, it validates the egregious action. Furthermore, I still believe this leaves the county wide open to future messy litigation as defense attorneys seek exoneration of clients using all available means, at undoubtedly great cost to the taxpayers.

. 

I believe we successfully made our overall point and will be found correct by the judge. What was interesting was that the county's attorney framed the convention's action as being an exception to the Right-to-Know law because they held an ELECTION, which is exempted from the statute. The problem for the county is, if that were true, then the election would have to be under the auspices of one of the three types as defined by NH's election laws. If that's the case, then the county violated ELECTION law instead of the RIGHT-TO-KNOW law. Either way, a body comprised of those we elect to MAKE the laws has broken some law, thus causing our honorable

lawmakers to become lawbreakers!

Here is the testimony I gave to the Belknap Superior Court today at 9:00AM:

Your honor,

If the use of a secret paper ballot by a public body in a public meeting, in this case, the Belknap County Convention, is allowed to stand, I fear the citizens of the county, and even the whole state, will be negatively impacted.

.

The law is quite simple. The Right to Know law- RSA 91A clearly includes a meeting of the Belknap County Convention as a “public proceeding”, therefore making the body subject to all of the rules governing such events. (91-A:1-a, I, d.) To make an exception in this case, one would need a new law, as none presently exists.

.

RSA91-A:2, II states that

“All public proceedings shall be open to the public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meetings of those bodies or agencies. Except for town meetings, school district meetings and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot.”

I’m not sure what part of this the County Convention didn’t understand. It plainly says “NO Vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot.” Given that we’re not talking about a town or school district meeting, the only other exception allowed for a secret ballot vote is for an election.

Continue reading "Right to Know lawsuit update." »

Posted by Doug at 07:37 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

.

GraniteGrok blogger Doug Lambert and former Laconia Mayor Thomas A. Tardif filed a suit Tuesday against the Belknap County Convention, comprised of the eighteen elected state representatives of Belknap County. The petitioners claim the "secret ballot" vote used by the County Convention in appointing a replacement to fill the vacancy left by the resignation of the elected County Sheriff is a violation of state law prohibiting such acts.

.

RSA 91-A:2 states in part that

Except for town meetings, school district meetings, and elections, no vote while in open session may be taken by secret ballot.

As I noted in this prior posting, the Citizen newspaper, along with the Laconia Daily Sun, and the actual recorded minutes of the meeting all reported that the vote to choose a new Sheriff was conducted via secret ballot. Contrary to what some members of the County Convention believe, this was an APPOINTMENT to fill a vacancy, NOT an election.

.

We are asking the Court to do the following:

1. The Court enjoin the illegally appointed Sheriff, Mr. Craig Wiggin from affecting his “official” duties on July 9, 2007.
2. Order the Belknap County Convention selection process for the Belknap County Sheriff to succeed Dan Collis as Sheriff be re-done, and
3. Order the defendants to comply with RSA 91-A:8 and other applicable Laws, and
4. Award the Plaintiffs all out of pocket expenses incurred by the petitioners personally against the defendants individually, and
5. In addition to any other relief awarded pursuant to this chapter, the court may deem, just and meet.

In other words, make this particular governing body comply with the law! Oh, and as this post from over six months back reveals, this is only the latest occurence where this bunch of elected "leaders" has chosen to stretch the boundaries of the state-mandated public's right to know.

.

In her latest Memorandum on NH's Right to Know Law, State AG Kelly Ayotte writes in the introduction that

The public's right-to-know what their government is doing is a fundamental part of New Hampshire's democracy. For our government to remain of the people, by the people, and for the people, while protecting individuals' privacy, it is essential that the people have reasonable and open access to the information that will inform the people what their government is up to and how it is performing.

.

With the exception of the public business conducted at traditional annual town and school meetings, New Hampshire uses a representative form of democracy. The people's elected representatives set and carry out most public policy. New Hampshire's Constitution and the Right-to-Know Law ensure that the public has reasonable access to public meetings and public records that show what those elected representatives and the appointed public officials that carry out our laws are doing.

Precisely. We'll see if the judge concurs this Friday morning at 9:00 AM in Belknap County Superior Court.

Posted by Doug at 04:22 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Sorry Doug, I am the contrarian in this discussion. From Instapundit: 

OH, GOOD, SOMETHING ELSE TO WORRY ABOUT:

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world.

So we'll either be roasting, or freezing. I guess either way, more insulation in my attic is a good idea.

While I think that there is global warming, I DO remember the dire warnings about global cooling back in the mid 1970's and how up in a stir folks got (although to be sure, not as much as they are now).  Frankly, cycles come, cycles go.  Cycles intersect with other natural cycles and things can look goofy for a few decades (not even an eyeblink in geological terms).

Humans adapt, be it cold or hot; that is what life is about: change and not static conditions.  

(tongue in cheek) -> Can't these PhDs get their story straight?  After all, look at all these folks without degrees or minimal degrees all a flutter that "the earth has a fever!  We're all going to die!"

Honey, where's my parka? 

(Cross-posted at GraniteGrok.com) 

Posted by Skip at 08:13 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Searsburg, Vermont
Pre & Post Construction Survey Results

"The most common reaction was a sense of 'awe' or express 'amazement', while others find the rotating turbines 'calming'. For some the experience was 'almost spiritual'."

Public Acceptance Study of the Searsburg Wind Power Project:
Year One Post Construction
Clinton Solutions December 1997

Posted by Doug at 06:53 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 07:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Thus, after about five minutes, ended the public hearing on the $53,686,000 municipal budget, of which $35 million would need to be raised by taxes.

Posted by Doug at 04:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

"The manna of liberty must be gathered each day, or it is rotten. Only by unintermitted agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity. Republics exist only on the tenure of being agitated." --Wendell Phillips

Posted by Doug at 02:53 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Homeland security?"

asked the board [selectmen] to authorize the department to seek and accept a $30,500 grant administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security, which requires a matching contribution of 5-percent, or $1,525 from the town. 

Continue reading "Kudos to the Selectmen!" »

Posted by Doug at 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)

It can take an extra half-hour each day for Concord police officers and detectives to don and take off their uniforms, check their guns and other equipment and go through messages — and they want to be paid overtime for that prep time.

Posted by Doug at 02:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:52 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 06:46 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Click here to view the video.

Posted by Doug at 02:32 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I mean, really, how hard is it to see there’s a huge fiscal crisis upon you, yet not do anything to change the situation that led to the crisis in the first place?  Is it really that difficult to understand that the state’s long-term debt burden would be eased by switching to a defined-contribution plan?

.

What’s worse the legislature is also considering bills to “bail out” the pension fund. That means “raise taxes”. And doesn’t it occur to these morons that the system has to be “bailed out” because the state can’t afford the benefits?

Posted by Doug at 12:45 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

 32:15 Budget Committee Membership. –
    I. The budget committee shall consist of:
       (a) Three to 12 members-at-large, who may be either elected or appointed by the moderator, as the town or district adopting the provisions of this subdivision shall by vote determine, who shall serve staggered terms of 3 years; and
       (b) One member of the governing body of the municipality and, if the municipality is a town, one member of the school board of each school district wholly within the town and one member of each village district wholly within the town, all of whom shall be appointed by their respective boards to serve for a term of one year and until their successors are qualified. Each such member may be represented by an alternate member designated by the respective board, who shall, when sitting, have the same authority as the regular member.

Continue reading "Who died and left HIM boss?" »

Posted by Doug at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Government Worker Benefits Bankrupting States - Union Head Response - Bankrupt Private Companies Too

by Bull Dog Pundit

While it might not be the sexiest of topics, it is the most fiscally alarming - the out of control costs for government worker retirement and health care benefits.  But a recent article on the huge gap between government worker pensions and private pensions startled me.

The U.S. government has a bigger unfunded liability for military and civil servant retirement benefits ($4.7 trillion) than it does for Social Security ($4.6 trillion).

Read that again - the US government owes its workers more money (which it doesn’t have) in retirement benefits than is owes to the nation as a whole in social security.

.

But that’s not the worst part. For most of you, state and local taxes are going to significantly increase thanks those government’s promising the moon to employees, but not paying for it.

Pension promises have “gotten out of hand,” says Peter Hanson, 73, chairman of NAI James E. Hanson Inc., a real estate firm in Hackensack, N.J. His firm offers a healthy private pension - up to 25% of compensation, given to employee retirement accounts - but it is tied to profits and given as a lump sum, not a lifetime promise of benefits.

.

Governments’ generosity could have serious consequences for taxpayers and pensioners. Some states - including Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and West Virginia - have troubled retirement systems that may require huge tax increases, spending cuts or even defaulting on promised benefits.

.

The financial soundness of civil servant pensions varies across the country. Government pensions are, on average, in a similar condition as private pensions - about 20% below the assets needed to be properly funded. But some states, especially in the industrial Midwest, have severely troubled pensions.

.

“The taxes needed to pay for these promises would push many of these states’ economies into a death spiral,” Chicago bankruptcy lawyer James Spiotto says.

And the public employee union head’s response to this?

Supporters of government pensions say the decline in private pensions is the problem, not the generosity of public retirement plans. “Rather than lower the bar for public employees, we need to stabilize retirement programs for everyone,” says Richard Ferlauto, director of pension and benefit policy for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, a union with 1.4 million members.

.

He acknowledges public pensions are getting more scrutiny. “People want to know, ‘Why should you have more security than us?’ ” he says. “It’s pension envy.”

What galls me most about this is not the fact that he’s defending the benefit. After all, he’s a union head and that’s his job. The real problem here is his failure to realize that there’s even a problem.  No mention is made of the huge tax increases on the people that are going to be required to pay for these benefits.

Posted by Doug at 08:04 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The following is information for energy efficient design of the proposed new Library and proposed new, added, police facility. All of this information has previously been provided to those design committees, and as of 2-17-’07 none of them has responded in any way, thus it is time to reveal all to the public and see if they want energy efficient facilities, or prefer to spend mega bucks in the future for heat and cooling. Note that in the past years the previous bad proposals for a new Library and new Police facility were overwhelmingly voted down due to the grossly energy inefficient designs (designs of the dark ages).

Gilford voters, please contact those 2 committees and get their current design data, before you vote to support a total unknown. Most of us want a greatly improved Police facility, and an expanded Library, but we DON’T want an energy & maintenance disaster, such as the current town hall.

Summer cooling in NH might not seem to be a big problem, but when totally wrong expensive design leads to triple cost of cooling, and construction, it is a MAJOR problem. "Conventional and often wrong" methods triple the construction costs PLUS the outrageous cost of equipment, and is subject to all energy cost increases! Maybe worse, since occupants often don’t accept designed "cooling", they demand the silly idea of openable windows to counteract good ventilation and cooling design. Observe large, multi story buildings: all fixed windows, and most spaces with no windows! In a Police Station, windows are a liability! Windows should all be placed HIGH so no one outside can view in. The only purpose of windows should be for minimum light to find the light switch in a room! As such they can be non opening, 10 layers, and not be a severe heat loss liability.

In NH cooling can be totally free: The ground is always COLD (which is the MAJOR problem with the badly designed Gilford Town Hall, the Gilford Community Church lower level, and major police station problem). The existing police station suffers from cold ground contact at floor and back wall, which leads to condensation, wet and cold rooms. We should never suggest another building with the same bad problems (as the previous police facility committee did)!

Instead, ...

Continue reading "Energy Efficiencies - necessities, not accessories" »

Posted by JackS at 08:18 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:59 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, we need to take ethics complaints seriously. But when we are faced with claims that should be summarily dismissed, we should summarily dismiss them. That’s what I tried to do last Monday, and there was no support from the other selectmen. I believe we were wrong to put Larry Pickett through another unnecessary public spectacle.
.
This will go down as an interesting episode in town history. Many of the allegations had common themes that hark back to the old days: a selectman should follow customary channels for getting information out; disagreeing on policy matters is “undermining” town staff; and robust public debate is to be avoided.
.
To me, an important subtext of this ethics affair was a last-ditch attack on the open, free-market-of-ideas culture of the blogs. Thank goodness the information age prevailed. We are moving forward, not backwards.
.
Thank goodness, also, that the First Amendment squeaked by in Milford.

Posted by Doug at 08:47 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok,

.

The counter claims regarding the actual goings on in the Gilford budget committee meetings are quite a stretch from reality. The letter writer who described some of the budget committee meeting antics was very accurate.  Unfortunately, he gets way off an important message when he makes claims of what might happen if a Gilford emergency should occur. I’m confident that those meetings have nothing to do with the job performance of Gilford’s dedicated town employees. Those kinds of attacks are not only baseless and uncalled for but unfortunately detract from the point he’s trying to make.

.

As a casual observer, it is easy to understand all sides of this issue. The budget committee meetings are more like department meetings that occur in most corporations. I think Chairman Dick Hickok runs things that way because he comes from a corporate background. Quite frankly it is very interactive and for the most part productive. It only gets dicey if the “experts” are questioned and some of their arguments aren’t holding water. We can all well imagine how we’d feel if we were sitting in our company’s board meetings as the directors were discussing cutting the money that we feel maintains the quality of our job performance or affects the salary and benefits that feed our families. I can honestly say that I’d be whispering an interesting conversation with my fellow employees sitting next to me in such a meeting. Most companies don’t invite employees to those meetings and we simply get the results in our pay checks.

.

Public business is different and all the residents are welcome to attend budget meetings, including town employees. In Gilford, employees are welcome to attend and their input can be very valuable. In one meeting a budget committee member was reminded by a town employee that a generator wasn’t solely used to back up computer systems but was also used to supply emergency power to the school because it’s a designated emergency shelter. There were a few immature snickers from some attendees, whispering accusations about the budget committee member’s competence, but that was ignored and the information was welcomed toward a critical budget vote. Setting aside the snickering comments, this informational dialogue is how it’s supposed to work. Budget committee members hear the department budgets defended by the department heads and make common sense evaluations based on the information received. When differing opinions arise, a debate is heard and decisions are made based on the discussion.

.

In the case of the fire truck, we heard from two experts with differing opinions, nothing more. I detected no personal hatred or agendas and both men gave exceptionally well pointed arguments. I personally would have voted to support Chief Hayes because his reasoning carried more weight with me. Keep in mind that I grew up with a fire fighting dad and spent most of my life around fire fighters. That doesn’t mean that I think anything less of Mr. McDevitt or the people that voted the other way, win or lose, that’s democracy.

.

We should consider ourselves lucky as a community to have so many passionately engaged members of the community willing to be a part of the governing process. The only problem that I’ve witnessed is the negative reaction, by some, to being questioned or even challenged. Gilford is a close community in which everyone cherishes our town employees and unfortunately they are held to a higher standard whether they are in uniform or not. I understand the emotional connection to the budget process but the reality of the situation is how it is reflected in the public’s eye.

Fortunately, I was one of only a few non employees or elected officials in attendance to witness these proceedings. The heckling comments from some of the attendees and tone of some of the presenters, though I understand them, were the very cause of “certain” budget committee member’s reactions. If Gilford had televised hearings we could all bear witness to see who really needs to change their tone. It’s obvious that we aren’t going to be hearing any public apologies any time soon.

.

Sadly, it appears we are going to see a continued barrage of letters and accusations from those who wish to smear the messenger as opposed to debate the important issues. This is usually the case when questionable spending requests can’t be intellectually defended. It would be a pleasant change if those attendees and budget presenters would take a long look in the mirror to assess their own behavior instead of blindly throwing rocks at the budget committee.

.

Understanding this political landscape, I feel it necessary to throw my hat in the ring to run for the Gilford Budget Committee. Recognizing that I can separate the fiction from reality, I believe the wisdom of the voters will elect me to serve them. Your comments are welcome, email: tstewart [type "at" symbol] Lr.net 

.

Terry Stewart – Budget Committee Candidate 2007
Gilford, NH

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:59 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Since the public hearings, I've done a slow take and am quite disturbed about the reserve fund articles in both Town and School warrants. 

.

I won't go into the intrinsic merits they may or may not have, some seem rather trivial, but the form they take I consider unacceptable.   This year's draft warrants would establish three new expendable reserve funds for the School District and four for the Town.  

I believe that, with very rare exceptions, we should never approve the establishment of expendable trusts.

.

First the distinction between expendable and non-expendable trusts.   The traditional Capital Reserve Fund was not expendable.   It was a matter of one annual meeting putting money aside for anticipated future capital expenditures, with the money staying in trust until a subsequent town or district meeting voted to take it out.   RSA 35:15, I, says "Persons holding such capital reserve funds in trust, . . . shall hold the same until such town, district or county shall have voted to withdraw . . . or shall have named agents of the town, district or county to carry out the objects..."   So if the warrant article names the selectmen or school board as agents to expend, it's expendable and otherwise not.   The purpose of the trust fund was, and still should be, to smooth out fluctuations in the tax rate by putting aside money in years when the net expenditures are relatively low and taking it out when they are high.   Such funds should be established only for purposes where expenditures are irregular and where they are likely to be large enough to have a significant affect on the budget but not large enough to warrant a bond issue.   And a non-expendable fund retains the authority of the Town Meeting or School District Meeting to determine when the money should actually be spent.

.

The one and only case that I can remember where an expendable trust was warranted was the school district a few years ago proposing an expendable special education trust to take care of unexpected expenditures like court-ordered placement of special-needs students.   This got a lot of debate, and we were finally convinced that these situations can come up suddenly and in large enough amounts to really screw up the operating budget.  A non-expendable trust fund wouldn't help much because you'd have to get a court order to call a special meeting to appropriate money out of the fund to pay for the emergency.   In my opinion, none of the funds proposed in this year's warrants come anywhere close to meeting the requirements for expendability that the special ed one did.

.

 The other problem I see is the wording in the three School District articles that makes the appropriation "from the June 30 unreserved fund balance (surplus) available for transfer on July 1 of this year".  If there are unexpended appropriations at the end of the fiscal year they lapse (with some exceptions; see RSA 32:7).   In the case of a school district, the lapsed appropriations (surplus) then go to reduce the district's assessment against the town for the ensuing year;  it is the town that has to levy the taxes.   Any capital reserve fund appropriation in that ensuing year, along with all other appropriations, would normally add to the assessment against the town.   But the wording of the articles in this case would short circuit the normal procedure.   Supposedly, it comes out in the wash but it gives the appearance of free money.   Actually, RSA 35:5 allows a town or district to transfer to a fund "any of its unencumbered surplus funds remaining on hand at the end of any fiscal year", but I think that's a lousy and confusing way to do it and it doesn't cost any less.   And it raises some questions:

.

    1.   How does the school board know, only half way through the school year, that there is going to be a $150,000 surplus at the end of the year?
    2.   If they do know that, then doesn't it imply that the budget for the current year was overly padded?
    3.   If the surplus turns out to be less than $150,000, then is the new appropriation reduced?  The warrant article doesn't say. 
.
    Dick Campbell

Posted by Doug at 04:12 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 11:40 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Q: How do you know a Gilford [politician] [bureaucrat] [special-interest water carrier] is being untruthful?

A: When they tell us that their [insert scheme du-jour here] "won't EVER cost the taxpayers a dime."

...Thomlinson, the chairman of the School Board, stressed that the funding for football amounted to 0.08 percent of the high school budget. He said that the board considered drafting a warrant article, but reached a "concensus decision" that because the sum was relatively small and offset by other revenues as a warrant article could be confusing to voters.

Tomlinson said the reason the School Board chose to include the program in its budget is because members felt a warrant article might be confusing for taxpayers who already must vote on a number of warrant articles, explaining that they might inadvertently vote against the measure.

And now, ladies and gentlemen, comes the next FREE GIFT: A BRAND NEW LIBRARY!

Posted by Doug at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Addressed to the editor, GilfordGrok,

.

As I was searching for information about the Gilford salary debate, I found a web site that had a lot of helpful information. ( gilfordgrok.com ) This site has figures from credible sites for anyone to confirm. Or if you don’t have the countless hours to compile and compare this enormous amount of information, you could trust that our elected officials on the budget committee have "accurately informed" us! This site also has the letter from the selectmen, also elected officials, questioning the validity of the budget committees report. If , in fact, all of our "elected" selectmen feel the need to chastize the committee taxpayers have elected, and intrusted, to oversee spending, we have more problems than out of control spending. I would think the civil thing to have done would be to have privately compared notes instead of slamming the budget committee in the local newspapers for doing their job. It is quite embarrassing.  One would assume that the people on the budget committee must be, at least, a little offended.  Even IF the figures were a little off, it’s clear to see our town employees are over paid for their responsibilities.

.
 It would appear that when an employee leaves the town that many times the new employee is brought in at the same, or close to the same salary as his predecessor. This may explain why our town administrator with about two years on the job is fourth highest, at $89,542.00, to the 30 or so towns compared. Lets not forget that he also has a fourth ranking assistant at $70,570.00. This may not be the explanation. I don’t believe anyone can even begin to explain the mega salary of our school superintendent! I DO know that my taxes are out of control.

.
 Again the site gilfordgrok.com may help you come to your own conclusion about the generous salaries, don’t forget benefits, of our town employees.

.
Doug Plummer, Gilford

Posted by Doug at 06:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

1. Start your budget process with a review of last year’s budget.  Label the top 5 expenses and compare them to stated goals – do they match?
2. Know your income for the last 5 years, and adjust next year’s projections as needed.
3. Know your goals for the coming year - commit the funds accordingly.

Now the tough question – are you willing to adjust expenses, or are you looking to expand taxes?   Do you believe govt should create a productive environment for individuals, or do you believe  individuals should contribute to greater govt?

From a budget point of view, decide what is important as a community (prioritize by voting), then raise funds to accomplish it.  Please note I specifically said "important as a community", not "important to the community".  The "as" promotes teamwork and lifting each other up (democracy); the "to" implies someone/s decides what is best for the community (dictatorship).

I propose that all taxes have term limits - short term limits. Of course, I support term limits for  politicians too.  Taxes should be ear-marked for a specific purpose, and auditable so at least 90%  reach the intended purpose.  If you've got more than 10% swallowed up in "administrative-ness",  you're doing something wrong.  Taxes shouldn't live forever, and neither should politicians.

This isn’t a one-size-fits-all issue.  100% democracy isn’t right for all people, and 100% capitalism  only makes the rich wealthier.  Where does your community fit on the scale of anarchy to oligarchy?  Which comes first – the budget or the tax.  We all know who plays second!

Posted by The IT Observer at 08:15 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Editor, GilfordGrok.com,

.
Recent articles and letters have made me realize where Gilfords taxes are going. In two words, forbidden at town budget meetings, "wages and benefits". Many town and school employees are at the top of the pay scale for over 30 comparable towns. But taxpayers average incomes are down in the middle of that range. Don’t forget that many of these high paid employees are from Gilford therefore increasing the taxpayers average income. By continually funding these huge pay increases we are only making the big gap between taxpayers and town employees incomes even larger. These increases are far more, sometimes double, than the raise people receive in the private sector. We need to eliminate these raises by establishing a "cap" on the positions that are so far above the average. Even better, eliminate some nonessential positions.

.
The last 3 year school contract had an unbelievable 8% increase every year. The latest one is, "only", over 4% but, we pay a higher percentage of their benefits. Meaning that the amount can go up within the contract. The town has requested an increase of 4.1% plus a 1.5%. Do the math, that’s a 5.6% raise while already being higher than most, if not all, of their counterparts in over 30 other towns. They need a big fat dose of "Reality"!

.
I would like to think that some of them are aware that this has to be brought under control. People in the private sector wouldn’t pass up a raise. But, they rarely set or recommend the amount of it such as in the house and senate. Or in this case the Gilford administration and superintendent. Do any of them have a conscience? Or are they so arrogant that they believe they are worth so much more than their peers? It would appear that both the superintendent, with a mega five year contract, and the administrator, who doesn’t want to talk about "wages and salaries", are in this frame of mind. Gilford can’t afford this attitude running our town!

.
Doug Plummer Gilford

Posted by Doug at 09:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Although this is not directly related to the Town, elections are coming up.  It is obvious that Doug and I are conservatives - thus, I am re-posting this from NRO.

(H/T: NRO)

One Soldier's Opinion [Stanley Kurtz]

The bold at the end is my emphasis......consider it.

Posted by Skip at 09:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

October 18, 2006
To the editor, GilfordGrok:

.

Bureaucrats Promote Spending

.

Last week a letter writer was chastising State Representative Jim Fitzgerald for his statements regarding wasteful spending by bureaucrats. Ultimately she asks the question, “Does it mean that if you’re a state employee, that you’re fiscally irresponsible and not protective of taxpayers dollars?” I’d like to ask the letter writer a question. Would you support a cost cutting measure that would still provide quality services if it meant eliminating your job? We taxpayers hear lots of lip service about reducing the huge bloated bureaucracy but it NEVER happens.

.

The letter writer needs to look no further than her own home town to see the abuse of taxpayer dollars. On the backs of the Gilford taxpayers, the over paid superintendent just cut “himself” a very nice deal to secure his welfare for the rest of his life. I think if you add it all up, with salary, COLAs, gold encrusted benefits and all; Gilford taxpayers may have just funded their first millionaire!   Please tell me how this expense adds any value to the education of a child? Let’s not forget that he has an assistant with a nice salary as well. Shouldn’t our priorities be directed to the actual education of our children and not creating a retirement program for over paid superintendents?

.
I do have encouragement though. The overpaid superintendent did provide us with a nice letter a few weeks back, stating that a quality education has more to do with the child’s social economical situation than the quality of the education being delivered. Brilliant! Since we have no “poor” children in Gilford then we have NO need for expensive teachers or overpaid superintendents.

.

We also have the police chief correctly pointing out that sharing our police dog is perfectly fine because Gilford receives mutual aid as compensation. Brilliant! No need to buy a ladder truck because we can use one from another town.

.

The Gilford library has a great new program that allows stay at home moms (i.e.: the wealthy) to come to the library with their children for fun events. As caring members of their community these moms could manage events, participate in caring for the library and co-ordinate their own activities thus eliminating the need for highly paid directors (of 32 similar towns, Gilford’s Library Director is the highest paid). What better example could these moms possibly provide for their children?

.

Ms. Letter Writer, do you seriously think that the above ideas would be considered? No, because it doesn’t seem to matter whether we’re discussing town, state or Federal spending, the bureaucrats will not only protect their jobs but actually grow them.

.
At least on the state level we can count on representatives like Jim Fitzgerald who are not life long bureaucrats and can look at things more objectively. 

Terry Stewart
Gilford, NH

Posted by Doug at 09:56 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok.com,

Gilford needs to cut taxes and cap salaries! It’s no wonder why our taxes are out of control. The recent September 22, Daily Sun article says it all. 23 of 39 comparable positions are in the top four out of 32 similar towns. My research of several comparable schools in the area shows that we have the highest pay scale. This is climbing higher with some of the highest pay raises, and among the best health care plans, in the latest three year contract. Even after the previous three year 8% annual increase. The actions of the school board in June is appalling. To extend the Superintendents, high priced, five year contract. This , after we voted against even having one in 1998. Didn’t we leave the old SAU to save money? Now we have created our own over paid bureaucracy. The decades long rhetoric about staying competitive is a farce. All towns use when bargaining for higher pay. Gilford used it even while already being at the top. We are now the "Bench Mark". As when I went to Gilford quite some years ago, many teachers complain to the students about their low pay. It was as disgraceful then as it is now. One senior class teacher recently offered extra credit to his 18 year old students to vote for the new contract.

.

  Go to www.greatschools.net under "research and compare" for other information the school board probably doesn’t want taxpayers to see. Our middle and high school has the lowest student to full time equivalent (teacher) FTE in the area. Combine this with being the highest paid, and Gilford's teachers are probably the best compensated teachers and administrators in the state. Yet the test scores don’t come close to reflecting this. Of coarse the $uperintendent always has a smooth excuse for this. Is this good for our children to see the highest position in the system questioning the validity of the test that are given nation wide? Laconia recently eliminated several administrative positions. Gilford added a whole new middle school administration along with curriculum staff. With all of these additional top pay year round positions, one has to wonder about the necessity of them. It is generally the same number of students and teachers handled by two thirds of the current administration. Lets not overlook all the other unnecessarily added position. Why do we need a third nurse for the same number of students, still in only two buildings? Or did a top administrators family member need a position? Multi-tasking shouldn’t just be for us poor souls in the "private sector"!

.

  This attributes to why Gilford spends $30 + million a year, while other comparable sized towns spend $15-20 million. Throwing money at this doesn’t result in higher test scores, or better employees. We give merit raises to town employees, not for exceptional performance, but just for being on the payroll. Then we have a teacher who repeatedly assaults a 14 year old student in the school and in the school parking lot undetected, or was it just unreported? Do you really believe All the other, top paid professional, teachers were unaware of this predator? And we trust, and pay, these people to protect our children? Or is this a case of not wanting to "blow the whistle" on a fellow union employee? Lets not forget this teacher is the son of the aforementioned mentioned top administrator. These are two perfect examples of why many companies in the "private sector", prohibit employing relatives. As in the church scandal, the safety of our children is being compromised for the sake of not wanting to be overlooked for promotions and, or, bad publicity.

.
Jim Cookman
Overwhelmed Gilford Taxpayer

Posted by Doug at 07:50 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Budget Committee

Section 32:16

    32:16 Duties and Authority of the Budget Committee. – In any town which has adopted the provisions of this subdivision, the budget committee shall have the following duties and responsibilities:

    I. To prepare the budget as provided in RSA 32:5, and if authorized under RSA 40:14-b, a default budget under RSA 40:13, IX(b) for submission to each annual or special meeting of the voters of the municipality, and, if the municipality is a town, the budgets of any school district or village district wholly within the town, unless the warrant for such meeting does not propose any appropriation.

    II. To confer with the governing body or bodies and with other officers, department heads and other officials, relative to estimated costs, revenues anticipated, and services performed to the extent deemed necessary by the budget committee. It shall be the duty of all such officers and other persons to furnish such pertinent information to the budget committee.

    III. To conduct the public hearings required under RSA 32:5, I.

    IV. To forward copies of the final budgets to the clerk or clerks, as required by RSA 32:5, VI, and, in addition, to deliver 2 copies of such budgets and recommendations upon special warrant articles to the respective governing body or bodies at least 20 days before the date set for the annual or special meeting, to be posted with the warrant.

Source. 1993, 332:1, eff. Aug. 28, 1993. 2004, 219:4, eff. Aug. 10, 2004.

Posted by Doug at 05:55 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Looking at a potential 10.9% budget increase for the town, selectmen are casting a very critical eye on spending for big-ticket items.

Selectmen also looked at a possible $1,500 cut to the executive portion of the Administrative budget. While the $1,500 is not much compared to the overall $447,000 total for the executive expenditure portion, it could be the most important $1,500 of the entire Administrative Budget.

.

The $1,500 represents a proposed increase to the $7,500 already allotted as a collective stipend for the selectmen. Town Administrator Evans Juris recommended the increase. Juris said the selectmen do a lot for the town along the lines of investing time and being on call day or night, even being named in some lawsuits, and in his opinion this was a way to acknowledge the selectmen's efforts and compensate them for their time.

.

When selectmen began discussing the line item, Selectman Connie Grant suggested that the increase be removed from the budget. Grant said with an increase of 10.9 percent to the budget the selectmen should be setting an example to the rest of the town, more can be done with less.

.

Doten and Selectman Alice Boucher did not share Grant's feeling about the increase. Doten said the gesture was a nice way to show their added efforts and to take it away was a real slap in the face.

Selectmen elected to wait on voting on the line item until a public opinion could be gauged by the three on the subject of the increase.

Posted by Doug at 08:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 04:44 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Thanks to the efforts of Gilford Blue Star Mother Karen Thurston, yellow ribbons have been placed at the entrances to the Town Hall in support of those troops serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. For quite some time, Karen has been bothered by a lack of any public display for the troops on behalf of the town. Apparently, all she had to do was ask. She tells me the idea of the ribbons was enthusiastically endorsed by the Selectmen.

There are a total of six ribbons, placed throughout the various entrances to the Town Hall. Thurston added that the ribbons will keep the community aware of the sacrifices that are being made everyday overseas.

 

Posted by Doug at 09:32 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

 

Posted by Doug at 07:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Up on your Nabokov by Alec O'Meara- Editor, The Gilford Steamer

Doug Lambert is right. Well, check that. He’s almost right; we’ll give him that. Lambert, a member of the Gilford Budget Committee and longtime local columnist, recently wrote about the sentencing of former middle school teacher Matt McGonagle. In his column, he raises some interesting questions. He also raises some we disagree completely with, namely insinuating that a cover-up occurred so that the school could continue raising taxes and avoid bad press. We don’t think that’s the case here.

.

Obviously, if there had been a cover-up, that is very serious business. In this particular case, were there both teachers and students at the time who knew something was up, but never went to authorities? It is a fair question, but since the entire administration of the middle school, high school, and SAU office has turned over since the incident, the question lacks the explosive implications it would have had otherwise.

.

However, here’s a much more interesting question that is still in the ballpark of Lambert’s comments: how much of a role does gender play in how we all react to these cases?  More specifically, would that courtroom have been as full of friends and family supporting McGonagle if this had been about a 14-year-old boy instead of a girl? Would there have been as many “blind eyes” back in 2000? Does he get two years? What if he was black, or Hispanic? What happens then?

Continue reading "Teacher Sex Assault Discussion Continues..." »

Posted by Doug at 09:07 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

August 7, 2006
Letter to the editor:

 I believe the advocates for safer boating laws need to refocus their energies on the real issues regarding boat safety. Over the last three years, boating deaths must be up about 500% due to drowning while swimming from a boat. It appears that a near zero speed limit wouldn’t have prevented these tragic deaths. Maybe we should outlaw swimming from a boat or require certified swimming certificates prior to swimming from a boat. You could even get those certificates on line! Perhaps we simply required all swimmers to wear life jackets regardless of where they are swimming from. It would certainly save money on funding dive recovery teams and definitely save lives.
 Maybe they’re looking at this all wrong. Wouldn’t a minimum speed limit keep people from jumping out of their boat? I don’t know about you but if I’m going 80 MPH in a boat, I’m staying in it!
I know these ideas are silly. It’s a boating speed limit (80) that will finally make the lake safe.
  

Terry Stewart

Posted by Doug at 07:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

A lack of funding for public transportation in the region was a major issue of discussion as the Lakes Region Planning Commission was given an introduction on the new Winnipesaukee Transit System.

The proposed transit system will replace the defunct Greater Laconia Transit Agency, or GLTA. Starting later this month, the Winnipesaukee Transit System will conduct runs between Laconia, Belmont, Tilton, and Franklin.

"Nashua and Manchester have public transportation systems, the money comes from the feds," he said. "Concord provides a significant part for matching funds," though the Lakes Region sets aside "not a dime," he said...

.

"[T]he public needs it and it's time for the community to decide whether or not they want it."

What will replace the sight of the publicly funded, dollar-hemorrhaging enterprise’s perpetually empty (noticeable when you peer through the window tint designed to conceal that fact) busses traveling the area’s lanes and highways?

not to count GLTA out yet- wasteful government programs never give up without some sort of fight.

Posted by Doug at 10:54 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Bill Bertholdt (Laconia Daily Sun, 7/27/06) in his Letter to the Editor, gives us two incidents to help bolster his argument that setting up boat speed limits will make all other boaters safer. I disagree.

The first reason he expounds upon in his own letter "Our experience on Lake Winnipesaukee so far this season hasn't seen boating education teach very many of the boating public much of anything that has to do with boating laws, regularions, courtesies". Perhaps, one might think, that if the boating public were to learn these laws better, and if there were better enforcement of current laws, most of the other problems related to unsafe boating would become irrelevant?  This, I would have no problem with.

Second - this is two incidents over HOW many "events" of boating on the Big Lake?  Let's put this into context - what is the empirical evidence of one or more seasons of accidents (even include real close, near accidents of this over so many boaters?  What if the numbers turn out to be that 99.7% of the boating public are fine - you would impose this because of 0.3% of the population? 

I await discussion.

Posted by Skip at 08:57 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The Citizen had an article on the Water Tower concerning new antennas that are proposed to be added to it. Frankly, I really don't care if more antennas are added.

What got my attention was that in order to set up the antennas, repairs have to be made.  I read that to fix the structural integrity problems would either be $4,000 or $200,000.  Isn't that a rather large difference? 

Is there anyone out there that is reading this know anything about tanks of this size and structure?  Is $4K sufficient to keep a tank that size full of water deciding to turn itself into a one time waterfall?  And if it is, how far is it just kicking the can down the street?  In this case, what is the right amount of money to repair it correctly?  Not with all the bells and whistles, but correctly?  

I don't know anything about water tanks.  I don't even know if the Town owns the tank or if someone else does.   I don't want to open the Citizen, Sun, or Steamer to find out that there is no more tank...

Posted by Skip at 08:33 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have watched in some amusement as Laconia taxpayers debate get ramrodded with its new Memorial Middle project.  Being on the Gilford Budget Committee, I have noticed that much of the project always had a "brass ring" associated with it - do things right, and you get a free ride (just as we did with ours).  That brass ring is the lure of "free money" - in any spending situation, the race is on to find that "free money" (generally grant money) . In many cases, once a certain price threshold has been reached, the grab for "free" money can be made from either the County, State, or Feds; sometimes it is from a private foundation.

It can also lead into higher annual costs later on at sometimes at an accelerated pace - such as what is being done in Alton - the lure of free money upfront for full time firefighters.  The problem is that almost ANY thing can be rationalized. 

Sociologists, pyschologists, and game theorists are always studying this topic - it is free only to the individuals taking the money, but raises the overall costs of society for all.  In other words, a few benefit while the majority pay, as that money has to come from somewhere.  So what do people do?

I have no problem if the monies are received from a private foundation.  Why?  If it is from a foundation, the money was earned by someone and donated for a given cause.  We are providing that cause - all is good.

However, when it comes from one level or another of government, it is generally tax money that flows in.  Yes, it may come from outside Gilford and "costs us nothing".  Yet, when one looks at the bigger picture, it does cost us something, but only a tiny bit.  We do need to realize that other people are loosing money out of their pocket (that could be spent on their own families) to fund out project.  Yes, I know that we do the same for others...but....

My question is this: why do we, as a society, continue to raise the cost of government this way?  Shouldn't each community be responsible for its own costs?  Should we always see it as 'free money"?

Posted by Skip at 07:54 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)