GilfordGrok

The voters of Gilford should know the whole story of how the Budget Committee came to reverse its decision on the Library warrant article. Committee member Dale Dormody described an analogy of how important the committee’s recommendation is to the voting public. He tells the story of an airplane mechanic applying a big sticker on the door of the plane that reads “UNSAFE To FLY”. Dale then asks “would you get on the plane?” This excellent comparison suggests that the committee has combed over the budget information thoroughly enough to know whether or not we should be spending the specified money. Let’s continue the analogy to describe what happens in Gilford when the "mechanics" deem the plane unsafe to fly. After the mechanic has applied his warning sticker he then gets lectured and brow beat by the group that is causing the unsafe flying condition. They manage to corner the mechanic during a vulnerable moment when he doesn’t have all his faculties. The mechanic is forced to remove the warning sticker from the plane even though the plane is still UNSAFE To FLY!

This was the case with the library warrant article giving the library $110,000 of proceeds from the sale of a parcel of the town’s land. The majority of the Budget Committee twice REJECTED giving the library more money. The first time, the Budget Committee simply agreed with the Selectman’s $40,000 cut for items they believed to be part of building a “free” library. The second time the Budget Committee REJECTED the recommendation of giving $110,000 to the library from the sale of town land.  In both cases they felt that the Friends of the Gilford Library promised the voters a “FREE” library and it could have been built using the original land and design drawings that were already paid for.

A third bite at the apple for the Gilford library was allowed because the Chairman didn’t adhere to previously established rules requiring that only a “prevailing” member can reopen a previously voted item. The timing of reopening the library warrant article was also such that a critical vote was absent from the discussion. Had all members been present I’m confident the outcome would have been the same as the first vote because nothing new was added to the discussion.

The “UNSAFE TO FLY” sticker has been removed but the plane is still broken!

Terry Stewart

Posted by Terry S. at 02:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I would like to remind everybody that Connie Grant was offering nothing new for the discussion when she was allowed to speak AFTER Skip moved the question. Her input was purely emotion and was nothing substantive in any way, shape or form. The Chairman said that the rules were that we would ONLY consider info we learned from the public hearing. What would have happened if my wife had wanted to speak? Selectman Grant was simply granted special privileges because she is a selectman. The selectmen are already well represented at the table.
. 
Giving Ms. Grant mic time given the point we were at in the meeting,  JUST PRIOR TO A VOTE gave the pro-library big spenders an unfair advantage. The input she gave was that the budget committee was being a stumbling block to what SHE saw as right. This input had no place in our deliberations. I stand by my point of order interruption and wish that the committee as a whole would become more conversant in parlimentary protocols. Calling the question is just that.
. 
Remember, Ms. Grant, while not a member of the committee, tried to particpate in a vote at last Tuesday's meeting by raising her hand (it's all on tape). While some may laugh this off as simple meaningless childsplay, there are some of us out here that take process very seriously. I'm sure if someone like Wayne Snow or Dick Campbell had watched this behavior, it would have caused their eyebrows to raise at the very least. The selectman raising her hand (while the actual selectman member of the committee sat in the audience, further confusing things) during a committee vote seems to me nothing less than an attempt to cajole and intimidate. I make no apologies for my action, and will most likely write about this on the 'Grok. The public's business is serious stuff. The politics are rather intense at times. Unfortunately, some people don't know this. It ain't bean bag!
 
Doug

Posted by Doug at 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by Doug at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been holding off on commenting on this, figuring that I'd let this noodle on its own for a while, but now (BING!) the timer has just gone off.

In the Sun, 11/16/07, there was an article that the Library Trustees are asserting that the land that the taxpayers bought for a previous incantation of a new library should rightly go to them.  Reasoning?  Since the voters approved the purchase of the land for a new library and that the Gilford Friends of the Library had donors that pitched in monies to help that process, 

"...it was appropriate to assign the proceeds from selling the lot to the Friends of the Gilford Public Library" [Robert Kammeraad, Trustee Chair].

I disagree with the logic, at least in part.

Yes, I believe the Selectmen should sell the land as at the present time, there are no long term plans (that I am aware of) that require a build-out of the town's infrastructure.  The only current thoughts are about having the SAU move out of the basement of the Town Hall and move into the Library contingent to the proper heirs assenting to the move.  Please note, however, that money may be needed to grease those skids, and certainly would be needed to rennovate the Library for the SAU's offices.  E.g., more money.

Yes, I agree that the donors should be repaid, as they made a good faith effort to assist - they should not be left dangling in the wind due to the FoGPL deciding that they'd go ahead and supply a new building because the voters voted down the last warrant for a new library.  If the sale happens, the right thing to do would be to return that money.

Which brings us to the meat of the problem - just giving the rest of the proceeds to the FoGPL.  The entire argument is that because the voters authorized the purchase of the land, the voters would want that money to go to them.  

No, I disagree.

As shown in bold above, while the voters did agree to purchase the land, they voted down the attempt of the last publicly funded library that was proposed.  This fact is not mentioned in the article.  Nor was that fact mentioned to me during the Sub-Budget Committee reviewing the Library budget (but the proceeds of the land idea was) nor during the full Budget Committee review (that I can remember - that's why the recording is helpful - let me know if you find otherwise!).

Like it or not, my reasoning is that while the taxpayers bought the land, I disagree that this fact automatically gives the right to the Library Trustees to assume it should be theirs for further funding of the new Library.  And no, I disagree with Bill Seed and his "embarrassed" remark as well, trying to guilt the BudComm into putting back in what the Selectmen removed.

The money used was taxpayer money, not the Trustees' money.  The Trustees stepped in, being unsatisfied with the voters judgement on the new Library, and did it themselves (and should be applauded for that action).  But that still does not change the fact that taxpayer money paid for the land.

How's this? The cost of the land in 2004 was $150K, with $40K from donors and $110K from the taxpayers.  For the sake of argument, given the current real estate climate, let's say it is sold for $150K. 

Give the donors back the money they raised as their money went for something other than the original intention (effectively, surplus land for the Town of Gilford rather than a new library).  What they do with that money afterwards is up to them.  The moral obligation will have been fulfilled.

The other $110K?  Here's a crazy idea - return that to the taxpayers as well!  That was used, at the majority vote of the citizens, for a library that the Town was going to build.  That purpose also became moot when the FoGPL decided to go their own way and do it on their own.

I do not know, off the top of my head, how many taxpayer units there are in Gilford - for the sake of argument, let's say 1,100 (heh - convenient for the math challenged amongst us!).  That means  $100 back, in the form of a check just like the $40K donors, to each taxpayer in Gilford. 

And then let the taxpayer, of their own free will, decide to donate to the FoGPL if they want!  After all, given the reasoning behind giving the donors back their money should also fit for the taxpayers, right? If the moral obligation to the $40K donators must be fulfilled for a purpose not taken, the same argument applies to the taxpayers.

Don't you agree? 

Continue reading "Who gets the money?" »

Posted by Skip at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Update:

Dale has updated his site to better show that the Selectmen removed items from the proposed Library budget on his front page - no longer is it possible to assume that the Budget Committee did the cutting. Thank you!

Look, if Dale wants to play a game, he's not playing it very well.  In this screen shot from his website:

If he was going to be completely honest, his table should show that almost EVERY department had its budget changed by the Selectmen before sending it on to the BudComm.  But he didn't.

He is making a statement that his wife's department did not get what it wanted.  Plain and simple...and in my opinion, blaming the rest of the BudComm (Margo Weeks excepted, as she voted with him) for not giving that department what it wanted is not the right way to play "in a civil manner".  The Library budget, as reviewed and voted upon by the BudComm, was never amended. Making the claim that the budget that we voted on was amended is false.

Period. 

IMHO...

Continue reading "Not quite complete....showing a bias, eh?" »

Posted by Skip at 05:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Hmm, I guess there's at least one reader of the 'Grok - a loyal reader asked that I put this up for them (albeit, perhaps a shameless plug!):

Do You Want To Be At Budget Committee Meeting From The Privacy Of Your Home?

Thanks to GilfordGrok, you can. The video is available as the meeting was taped.

Last night the Committee met with the Library Trustees to discuss their budget which included 5 extra items to be added in. These items included security system( $ 8,000 ), new book drop ($3,000) 10 new computers ( $10,200 ), moving costs ($15,000) and telephone system ($4,000) All these items should have been included in our FREE LIBRARY at no extra cost to the tax payers. Now, they are looking for taxpayers to come up with this. There are already extra costs as reflected in the department of Public Works Departments budget. These things were approved ,no problem, because it is part of maintaining the library. Taxpayers were promised that the library would not cost anything as the monies were being raised privately. If these items are to be covered by taxpayers, perhaps some of them could be added delayed so that the library budget does not increase by 14%, the largest increase be any department.

Posted by Skip at 03:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night was the turn of the Library's to be reviewed and voted upon by the entire Budget Committee.  Knowing that there might be some "discussion" about the items, the 'Grok recorded it - twice actually!.  There will be isolated clips later on (already in process).

The full video of the discussion is here.

Warning - it is long (1 hour, 26 minutes) and big (about 143MB).  However, it will give you the full picture of how the Budget Committee conducted its discussion.

I'll have more to say later.

Posted by Skip at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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)

Well, a week ago, the Friends of Gilford Library announced a bombshell - you want it, you got it. Actually, the operative words are: if you "accept" it, we will build it. Taken together, it could present a quandary.

Maybe not for the average person.....frankly, if I had not become more aware of how things work, I wouldn't put two and two together. My reaction would be “hey, it's FREE! What do you MEAN, you don't WANT it? Are you out of your freakin' mind?”

Now, I think I know a bit better. One of my favorite phrases is TANSTAAFL – There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. In other words, nothing in life is free – almost anything will cost somebody something. It is this phrase that I wish more people would take to heart and really understand that there are no exceptions.  

For instance, I remember back when Oprah gave everyone in her audience a brand new car. When it was announced, the audience EXPLODED! Crying, cheering, screaming, back-slapping, hugs all around. And there's Oprah, a real big grin on her face, as all of the audience members this day were “deserving” and could not afford these Pontiacs themselves. Er, except for one thing.....as gifts over $10,000 (I think that is the limit), the cars were now considered income – therefore, eligible for income tax.  

What was seen as free quickly became sore points – crying again ensued, but for other reasons (for complete disclosure, I don't remember what the outcome was).  Why? These were people that couldn't afford it (no, not the cars, but couldn't afford even the tax on one).

Same thing when people yelp for joy when government grants are won – although “free” to the local citizenry, it did cost other taxpayers somewhere else. And the opposite is not often considered – when other places get grants, we pay.

So whenever government is involved, nothing is free. And I guess that this is my concern with respect to the gift of the library.

So, what do I know at this point?

Continue reading "Gilford Library - Skip's turn" »

Posted by Skip at 08:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 09:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)