GilfordGrok

I quoted the Citizen a while ago when the question was "School Board, will you print the SAU employee salaries in the Annual Report": 

The argument has been - hey, why make it easy for taxpayers?  They can come in and do a Right To Know anytime they want to get the information.

This proves the argument:

Blandford questioned the need to publicize the information at all, since the public has access to it through making a formal Right-to-Know request for the information.

As it stands now the district keeps track of who makes Right-to-Know requests in town and what information they are seeking.

Blandford said that should the information be printed in the town's annual report, the district would lose their monitoring "control."

Control.  Control.   Control.  And that's what it is all about.  Control.  Who has it, and who does not?  After all:

Knowledge is power

- Thomas Hobbes 

Ask yourself in light of that question: Where does that locus of power now exist? And where should it be? 

The premise, this time was this:

Promoting a limited government that is open, responsive and fully accountable to and in touch with its citizens without interfering in their personal, daily lives.

It was asked of the Town, the SAU, and the County Commission if they would consider making their websites more open and accountable by including much more information on their website.  A good 10 point measure of open and transparent can be seen at the SunShine Review.

At the last Select Board meeting, my request to get on their agenda to give a more formal presentation seemed to be favorably received (hint - be at the next meeting!).

The School Board?  I guess from the above and from their meeting yesterday, not so much. From the Citizen: 

The Gilford School Board has turned down a request by the Gilford Town Republican Committee to put a range of School District records on the Internet.

Last week the Republican Committee wrote the board to request that everything from meeting minutes and agendas to the budget and check registry be posted online. While the School District does post some of the information requested, the desire was focused on financial and other information that is not made available on the web.

"It comes down to the essential question, does government stand for the people or vice versa?" questioned Skip Murphy, chair of the Gilford Republican Committee.

There is always the fundamental question: what is the proper role of government?  Another: does government (elected, appointed, and employees) exist for the betterment of the citizenry, or is it the other way around - an entity existing at the expense of the taxpayers. Which is the servant of which? 

From the start the board was reluctant in moving forward with the request. School Board Chair Sue Allen opened by announcing the request and added: "... but the information they are requesting is available to anyone who comes into the SAU by filling out a request form."

My definition of a more open and more transparent is...

Continue reading "For a more open and transparent government..." »

Posted by Skip at 08:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Gilford Steamer, 4/3/08,

Selectmen offer no response to Juris petition.

[snip]  

Boucher ended her presentation of the petition by asking anyone who wanted to speak about this issue during public input to be courteous and polite. There were no comments from any of the selectmen on the petition brought forth by Boucher. The Board of Selectmen continued with the meeting and then opened the meeting to public input.

Though the meeting room was crowded, no resident chose to speak to the petition. “Maybe they didn’t know what to say,” said Boucher.

“Or maybe they thought I had said all that needed to be said.”

Or they just disagreed with her? 

As I was not there, I can only surmise.  Yet, I think that in response to her presenation, the silence must have been deafening.
 

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

While this will be under the aegis of the Gilford Town Republican Committee, I thought many others may wish to come hear Jeb speak as he is continuing his run for the Congressional seat from NH District 1.

All are invited!

Date:   This Thursday, 3/27/08
Time:   6:30pm

Where:    Gilford Town Hall
              47 Cherry Valley Rd,
              Gilford, NH 03249
              Conference Room A

Candidate for NH Congressional District 1

 

Posted by Skip at 02:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall...

When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go...

Go ask Alice, I think she'll know

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead

Go ask Alice...

As the town waits with bated breath for former Selectman Alice Boucher to submit her silly petition demanding answers from the present Board of Selectmen today at 3:00, I thought the folks might like to see her now infamous question that seemingly set a chain of events in motion that led to the firing of Town Administrator Juris. Recall she started the public questioning at the March 6th candidates night with an accusatory question aimed at candidate John Goodhue-- one of the targets of the infamous Juris letter (on town letterhead) submitted to the Selectman after its initial release to the media.  Many folks in town feel that Alice's actions Thursday evening followed by the letter most likely altered the outcome of the election. Anyway, here's the video:

See you at Town Hall today at 3:00! [NOTE: The missing letters at the end of some of the script in the video is an apparent glitch in Windows Vista/Moviemaker. While the words are all there during the editing process, for some inexplicable reason, some letters get dropped during the "publish" phase.]

Posted by Doug at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Er, Bill? There are places other than in the "dead wood" press that people have the ability to comment on the news of the day.
 

To the editor,

The recent firing of Gilford Town Administrator Evans Juris is a great loss to the citizens of the town and is cause for great concern regarding the actions of Selectmen Connie Grant and Gus Benavides. Evans provided the town with competent management and he did all that he could to see that the governance of the town was open and honest. Apparently, that was his downfall, as he raised the ire of Grant and Benavides by going public about their failure to conduct the town’s business in compliance with the rightto- know laws and about Benavides’ interference in the evaluation of town employees.

All we, the general public,  have seen so far are vague allegations of violations by Mr. Juris of the RTK law.  Nothing that we can prove or disprove at this time.  Given the combination of the timing of his letter and the accusation by Mrs. Boucher, it seems, to me, an attempt to get to political rivals from the other side first.

In a blatant move to silence Evans, Grant and Benavides took the easy way out — get rid of Evans and get rid of the threat to their running the town their way.

Until you or anyone else can provide the general public specific and concrete examples of malfeasance by Connie and Gus, this latest letter is not much raised above those same allegations?  After all, basing an argument on an argument of allegations only is not much of an argument, n'est pas?

The only things that we do know for sure are:

• Mrs. Boucher political slap against John Goodhue,
• Mr. Juris's letter (with allegations but no specifics)
• Mrs. Boucher's attempt to slow the process down
• Mrs. Boucher's political loss by being outvoted by Connie and Gus to fire Mr. Juris according to the terms contained in his employment contract.
  

That's it! 

This firing is not about authority; it’s about open and honest government. And it’s no small irony that the erstwhile champions of open government, Doug Lambert and Skip Murphy, have been totally silent on the questions raised about the propensity of Grant and Benavides to operate behind closed doors. Why, in this instance, has there been no attempt by Lambert and Murphy to shine the light of day on the actions of these selectmen? All the talk has been about expediency and authority, which is all pretty petty in comparison to the real issues raised by Evans.

Oh Really?  So far, on GilfordGrok, we have

• Posts    12
• Podcasts    3
• Video    2
• Poll 1

On GraniteGrok (not including Meet The New Press)

• Posts    2

Meet The New Press

• Podcasts    2
• Video 1 

In addition, we have over 4,800 words written commenting on this situation.   This is saying "nothing"?

All we have to go on is, as stated above, the vague allegations of Evans Juris (and now Mrs. Boucher).  Doug and I are not reporters - we have day jobs other than blogging or the radio show.  While we have done independent reporting, it is when we have the time and opportunity.  I frankly do not have the time to run down "what might be's" right now - do you Bill?

Finally, the actions of Grant and Benavides should serve as a warning to the public about a 3-person board of selectmen. When a two-person majority can collude and raise the havoc that these two have, we should quickly recognize that we would be better served by a 5-person board. Election day 2009 will be here before we know it and we will have the opportunity to restore open and honest government in the town.

I will agree to a 5 person board. In fact, I think it is a great idea!  You write the petition warrant and I'll sign it!

However, I think that for you to state as fact that Connie and Gus are "colluding" is putting yourself out on a limb with respect to facts.  You accuse Doug and I not running this up the reporting flag pole - go ahead, show us what YOU have in this respect to actual facts.

In the meantime, we’ll rely on the honesty and integrity of Kevin Hayes to keep the Board on the straight and narrow.

Well, we now all know where you stand with your take on Connie and Gus - if Kevin is the only one mentioned for "honest and integrity", I can see the PR war as been joined.

And remember, I believe that this has been a political bet gone bad and my words have spoken to that event and those that have transpired since then to support it - I've not assailed either Mr. Juris's or Mrs. integrity or honesty.  Connie and Gus, I'm quite sure, will be pleased to hear of your  view of them.

Posted by Skip at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Let the Letter writing begin!

Doug has one in the Citizen, along with Mrs. Boucher and  Bill McClean

Editor, The Citizen: On March 12th Selectman Grant and Selectman Benavides voted to terminate Town Administrator Evans Juris. As the former Chairman of the Board of Selectmen, I am bewildered by this vote.

Yup, it certainly showed in the video.  It certainly seemed from your opening remarks that you believed that you had the situation well in hand - as I said on Meet The New Press, that was the run up to "kick the can down the street".  It was VERY clear that you did not want to deal with a pressing issue in town.  After all, it seems very clear to me that you and Mr. Juris made a political bet to influence the political atmosphere here in Gilford.

This you did - it is just that the end game hasn't worked out the way you wanted.  Yes, John lost the election by 20-odd votes - perhaps within the margin of error that your accusation may have made?  However, while Evans was saved from John, you unleashed a sequence of events that ended up in that which you were trying to prevent.

Yup, Mrs. Boucher, meet Mr. Law of Unintended Consequences. 

Selectman Benavides stated,"Despite what has been said, if there is a way to work this out I am all for it. As a man of faith I have to turn the other cheek". Shortly after saying he would like to work things out, he voted to terminate Town Administrator Evans Juris. Why?

I'm no mind reader, but I have heard people say the same thing that Gus did, even when it is obvious that there really is no way to recover that situation of which they spoke.  I'm not sure of why the "faith" statement came up.  My only take on that is while as a man of faith, that may well apply to him as an individual but it does not apply to a governmental office.

I wish both Grant and Benavides would have listened to what Town Counsel suggested and not deal with the situation until all parties could come together to air out all of the concerns.

It is clear from the recording that they did - they just came to a different conclusion to how to deal with the situation.  Again, you have used the word "defy".  Perhaps in your mind, they "defied" the Town Counsel.  We, and You, do not know that given the fact that Connie stated that she had talked with the Town Counsel herself (ditto Gus).  You had, at the time, no good knowledge of what was said in those two separate conversations. 

And I hope they were separate in order to be within the Right To Know Law!  A good deal of that video, recorded by the Town cameras, show YOU berating Connie and Gus for not calling you.  THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN a serious problem with regards to the RTK law.  And there you were, the Chair of the Select Board, saying (in essence), "Forget the law, call me!".

I thought the Chair was supposed to uphold the law, not cause others to break it....

Since Selectmen Grant and Benavides were elected by the people to serve the town, an explanation is warranted. A petition is being circulated and I would appreciate the concerned citizens that called me, join me in signing it. It is truly a sad situation for our town to be going through something that could certainly have been dealt with differently.

This is just SO rich.  How many times did the Board NOT make decisions? There you were in your opening statement stating that the Board will do nothing, then again trying to get them to do nothing, and now that there is no political fallout on you part, you berate Connie and Gus all because they refused to do your bidding from the lofty position of Chair.

Methinks it may be that in not kowtowing to your demands, admonition, and outburst, they proved themselves to be more capable to react decisively and appropriately.  It is only now, free of the office of being Chair, that you are so willing to "beat feet" and hurry along the talk.

Politics?  Yes, indeed 

Posted by Skip at 11:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here are the numbers from today's vote. Once again, Gilford sets the pace when it comes to citizen involvement and making SB2 a wonderful thing for everybody...

RESULTS ARE IN...

TOWN BALLOT:

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 1726

<---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->

SCHOOL BALLOT:

School Board:

        Blandford  1375

S.D. Moderator:

        Cameron  1408

S.D. Clerk:

        Varricchio  1367 

S.D. Treasurer:

        Simoneau  1430

Articles:

TOTAL VOTES CAST: 1724

Posted by Doug at 06:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

We will be voting for John Goodhue for Selectman and Bob Brent, Sue Greene and Terry Stewart for Budget Committee.

Other items of note---

Town Warrant #4: NO

Town Warrant #17: NO ("free" library $$$)

Town Warrants #18 thru #24: NO (outside agencies)

Town Warrant #27: NO!!! (If your property taxes are too high, then advocate that sommebody cut some spending!)

Of course, there are many more items of interest that you should pay attention to as you vote. ANd there are others you should vote "NO". Please scroll down this page to check out the entire list of recommendations and rationale as we see 'em. See you at the polls!

Posted by Doug at 05:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

That's how much more the county will be snatching from a Gilford family of four this year to fund it's ever-expanding budget.

No matter where one looks, there are events taking place, and choices that need to be made, all of which will have a profound impact on our lives—especially our wallets! Whether it’s budget votes on the ballot, candidates that will either be frugal with our monies or spend it like drunken sailors, and the question of adopting SB2 (surely a no-brainer), this is the time of year when the power is in our hands. In many instances, the choices are pretty clear between business as usual, or adopting a new degree of scrutiny and oversight. The beauty of our system funded through property taxation here in NH is that almost the entire cost and function is controlled right at the local level, and residents, should they choose to avail themselves, have a large amount of say in the final outcome. Except for when it comes to Belknap County, that is. For that, we are at the mercy of 18 people….

By now, most taxpayers in Belknap County should have heard about the looming impact posed by the need for more funds due to reductions in revenues from the state. The county portion of our property tax bills is estimated to rise some 13%. This isn’t chump change. In this prior post, Skip has calculated that this will cost an average Gilford family of four an additional $136 in new taxes, on top of an increase generated no matter what happens at the March 11 budget voting. Laconia, under the constraints of the tax cap, will have to shave some $250,000 from its budget to stay compliant. Proportionally, the story is the same in the rest of the towns in the county.

And here’s the rub—not a single taxpayer from any of the communities has any say in the county budget whatsoever—except for the 3 County Commissioners and the 18 members of the County Convention, comprised of the delegation of NH house representatives. It is their shoulders that we rely upon to keep expenditures under control in order to maintain tax stability. They are the eyes and ears of the taxpayers of the county. Based upon my recent observations, they have failed us miserably.

Continue reading "$136. " »

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

"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 | Comments (0)

Posted by Doug at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• better than the MSM with all but those 55 of age or older.
• rate pretty much higher than our Senators and Congress folks too.

This has been at Dale's site for a while (it is clickable).  The link goes to a piece by Kathleen Parker - a columnist I generally like to read.  In this column, however, she does take a slap at at bloggers (those upstart ruffians that dare defy the normal journalistic apprenticeship process!).

Heh!  One must graduate from a J-school and spend years learning a craft in order to ever put fingers to keyboard?  Many of the elite MSM do share her outlook. What they haven't realized is that this relatively new technology is one that can be classified as a true disruptive technology - one that changes the landscape of either an industry or makes it irrelevant (and no, I am not saying that it is the latter - but look what automobiles and trains did to horses in the transportation industry, or oil did to whale hunting).

However, upon reading what she wrote, the implication that journalists are automatically better and more professional, I think of the recent event when the Editors of the New York Times (supposedly la creme de la creme of the print journalism where articles are protected by "layers of fact checkers and editors"), declared that the most famous part of the Declaration of Independence is actually part of the Constitution  :

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that’s to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.

(H/T: The American Pundit via Instapundit) 

Heh...which amendment in the Bill of Rights is happiness? 

J-School eh?  Most soldiers, fresh out of high school, know that simple difference.  I bet most elementary school kids know this (at least I would hope so).

More can be seen here of journalistic "mis-conduct" (and remember Jason Blair of the NYT?).  However, it goes without saying, and reverse paraphrasing from Technorati, "with 94 million blogs, some will not be good either".  Yes, there is stupidity on both sides.

For a more even handed treatment of blogs (and a bit of history that I was not aware of), try this....and you decide.

Posted by Skip at 09:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Before starting blogging, I used to write a lot of Letters to the Editor.  More than a few of them were in rebuttal to Dr. Leo Sandy of Plymouth University. Anyone who reads the Laconia Daily Sun has seen his columns talking about his Peace philosophy (and it general anti-Western stances).

Given that the title was "The Peace Racket", I had to read this article to see what it said. Now, I have a conservative traditionalist outlook on life (no surprise, right?) so when I saw that the article doesn't necessarily contain rebuttals to the usual claims and lack of results (as I asked Dr. Sandy - "how come Peace Activists have been able to solve ANY war, and why don't we see them actually over there just talking to the terrorists?")  but speaks to the underlying foundation of the movement, I thought others might enjoy learning something too.  The author, Bruce Bawer, has done quite the job in researching and bringing up some "inconvenient truths" about what seems to be nothing more than a grant sucking indoctrination racket whose sole purpose is to bite the hand that feeds it.

If you want peace, prepare for war.” Thus counseled Roman general Flavius Vegetius Renatus over 1,600 years ago. Nine centuries before that, Sun Tzu offered essentially the same advice, and it’s to him that Vegetius’s line is attributed at the beginning of a film that I saw recently at Oslo’s Nobel Peace Center. Yet the film cites this ancient wisdom only to reject it. After serving up a perverse potted history of the cold war, the thrust of which is that the peace movement brought down the Berlin Wall, the movie ends with words that turn Vegetius’s insight on its head: “If you want peace, prepare for peace.”

This purports to be wise counsel, a motto for the millennium. In reality, it’s wishful thinking that doesn’t follow logically from the history of the cold war, or of any war. For the cold war’s real lesson is the same one that Sun Tzu and Vegetius taught: conflict happens; power matters. It’s better to be strong than to be weak; you’re safer if others know that you’re ready to stand up for yourself than if you’re proudly outspoken about your defenselessness or your unwillingness to fight. There’s nothing mysterious about this truth. Yet it’s denied not only by the Peace Center film but also by the fast-growing, troubling movement that the center symbolizes and promotes.

Call it the Peace Racket.

Continue reading "The nutty professor - the racket exposed?" »

Posted by Skip at 08:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Barbara Rando of Moultonborough had a good letter in the Citizen and Sun on this whole incident from the perspective of a Moultonborough resident.  I asked for and received permission to reprint it in full.

I was astonished to read the August 3^rd commentary by the Gilford School Board on what transpired at the July 25^th meeting with the Moultonboro Budget Committee Study Group. I wish to offer this for the record.

I was one of the two residents from Moultonboro attending the Gilford meeting. The notice in Moultonboro advertised the Study Group was meeting with members of the Gilford Board of Selectmen, Budget Committee, and School Board. 

A woman I now know as Sue Allen spoke to me as I was nearest the door. At first she looked in the room and then pulled back into the hallway. I identified that I was from Moultonboro and explained that while awaiting her arrival a discussion with members of their Budget Committee had begun. I asked her to come in; we were waiting for them. The response was that she and Derek Tomlinson didn’t want to come in with the Gilford Budget Committee members present, and they would wait for someone to get them when we were finished. I asked them to wait a moment and I relayed her comments to Mr. Caswell, a Study Group member. Mr. Caswell called out and motioned to the 2 members of the School Board to come into the meeting but they did not enter. The Study Group Chairman was then interrupted and told the School Board folks were in the hallway. Chairman Hopkins leaves the kitchen.

After several minutes, Chairman Hopkins returns to the kitchen and begins his commentary on people being afraid to talk on camera, says that for some reason this Study Group is under a lot of scrutiny, we all discuss the Right to Know law, and he is then asked “what happens now”? Mr. Hopkins says he is leaving the kitchen to meet with the School Board members and that he and one other wouldn’t constitute a quorum. He would still have that meeting that we had all come down for, but it would be private. He invited any one member of the Study Group to attend this private session, but they all stayed put. The published minutes written by Chairman Hopkins state: “they (School Board) indicated they would speak with our group, but did not wish to speak in the presence of the cameras and others present”.

Now comes the July 26^th Laconia Citizen which reported this from Allen: “She explained that when she walked in she believed that Lambert and Murphy were already meeting with the Study Committee, so being on a tight schedule they elected to conduct their meeting with Hopkins elsewhere as not to disturb what was already taking place.” I have no idea what is going on with Gilford politics, but after reading that, knowing what I was first told in the kitchen, and even comments by Chairman Hopkins, the School Committee members simply wanted to avoid questioning in front of a camera and in front of the Budget Committee members, and for that matter, likely the 2 Moultonboro citizens. At no time did Sue Allen’s words to me hint at anything about a tight schedule. Quite to the contrary, she said they would “wait” until the discussion was over. This version is not covered in the minutes of Chairman Hopkins.

In the same July 31^st article we learn from Sue Allen that the “door was open”. Huh? After all that transpired in the kitchen, nine people are now to follow Chairman Hopkins around the building to locate and sit in with the School Board who were then going to talk openly with us in the new location? Or, does this end up conveniently in Mr. Hopkins’ lap? He was supposed to invite us up but he didn’t, and he was wrong stating they wanted to participate without a quorum as noted in his published minutes?
Then, we have the August 3^rd Laconia Citizen Commentary from the full 5-member Gilford School Board. It stated: “The fact is that Sue Allen and Derek Tomlinson arrived at the Gilford Town Hall kitchen as previously agreed, and when finding a full room and what appeared to be a meeting with some members of the Gilford Budget Committee, they waited in an open conference room upstairs for any representative of the Moultonboro Study committee. When Jerry Hopkins entered they met with him with the doors open. No other people chose to attend”.

This begs several questions to be asked. Mr. Hopkins, did you ask the School Board members to come into the kitchen with the rest of the group as I had done and Mr. Caswell had done? Why did they leave the kitchen hallway? Mr. Hopkins, are your minutes correct that the Board members didn’t want to meet on camera and in front of others? What about the minutes of Doug Whitley, another Study Group member: “since we had 2 people to record the meeting, the members of the Gilford School Board would not meet with us”, are those accurate?

I’m astonished at not only the actions of Chairman Hopkins and the Gilford School Board at the publicly posted meeting of July 25^th, but at the Board’s changing statements of fact. How is it that the same posted meeting with the Gilford Board of Selectmen had not only the courtesy of full participation by that Board, but also included the Town Administrator and Finance Director. Now, we have the School Board Members dancing around “quorums” to avoid public settings, and saying the door was “open”? Sue Allen, Derek Tomlinson, and Jerry Hopkins knew where we where; where were they?

This is all so very sad and unfortunate for the members of both communities. I am very glad that the public portion of the meeting was taped, otherwise, who could really believe all this? I attended this meeting out of curiosity as it was a hot item at Town Meeting. Wow, what an education in local politics! The door to their meeting room may have been physically open, but it was still a “closed door” private session as reported by Cutter Mitchell at the Laconia Citizen.

Barbara T. Rando
Moultonboro

Posted by Skip at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE (even before posting it!)

I am putting this up, even if incomplete, as Doug has posted his new YouTube.  The context of why that post is there may be explained here in this one.  

Note: I think there are a couple more to post, but do not have the time right now....later on today.

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

I thought it was, but I guess it has not.  Dale Dormody (Doug's chief rival in this past BudComm election) has raised the following question (to the entire Budget Committee). 

Dale Dormody sent out an email to the entire BudComm members (Cc: Dick Hickok, Sandy Bailey, Debbie Shackett, Doug Lambert, Evans Juris, Gus Benavides, John O'Brien, Margo Weeks, Bob Brent, Sue Greene, and Terry Stewart) is questioning why Doug and I were talking to the MSC at all.  

I question the use of the email - he was warned at the same Administrative meeting he references below that email is not really allowable as a communication device if one truly wishes to abide by the spirit of the Right To Know law - I know, I said it.  

Thus, so that the public will know (and yes, I have asked that this email string be put into the minutes of the next BudComm meeting) what has transpired.  The email thread is given in ascending chronological order.

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

From: Dale Dormody
To: Dick Hickok ; Sandy Bailey ; Debbie Shackett ; Doug Lambert ; Evans Juris ; Gus Benavides ; John O'Brien ; Margo Weeks ; Robert Brent ; Skip Murphy ; Sue Greene ; Terry Stewart
Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Gilford Budget Committee / Moultonborugh Study Group

Good morning, all,
 
A quick question about something that's been in the news lately - specifically the meetings held in Gilford with the Moultonborough Study Committee.  Apparently they are looking into the formation of a municipal budget committee and were seeking input?
 
My question is over an issue that we had discussed in our administrative meeting this spring.  I thought we had all agreed that no members would be speaking on behalf of the budget committee?   I've only viewed a small portion of the tape - but it appears that Doug and Skip are both providing their feedback to the Moultonborough group.  I'd just like a confirmation that they had preceded their comments with a disclaimer, and had clearly stated that they were not speaking on behalf of the committee?
 
Further, I think it might have been more appropriate for Doug and Skip to have suggested that a meeting be arranged with the full Gilford Budget Committee - and to have withheld their comments until that time.
 
Perhaps that was done, and those disclaimers were made....but I didn't see it on the tape, and I'd like a confirmation.
 
Thanks
 
Dale Dormody

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

From: doug@granitegrok.com

Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2007 11:40 AM

Continue reading "Nope, not yet" »

Posted by Skip at 12:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

10. Betsey informed the other Selectmen that she requested to attend the upcoming meeting between Town Counsel and the Budget Committee Study Group on August 8, 2007.  Her purpose is to discuss RSA 91-A, “Right to Know Law”, and the proper procedures this and other groups must follow.  The Chairman of the group, Jerry Hopkins informed her that some of the members are not comfortable with Selectmen attending this meeting.  Betsey added that she discussed this with Karel and spoke with Paul Sanderson, an attorney at LGC.  Attorney Sanderson told her that the Selectmen have the right to attend any Town sanctioned committee or group meeting to be informed.  Ed added that he discussed this matter with Betsey and he also wants to attend this meeting.  Ed stated that the Board of Selectmen fully supports the Right to Know Law and welcomes audio and video taping that is done as this is a public forum.  By consensus the Selectmen approved that Betsey and Ed attend this meeting.

When it comes to the Law, no one is above it, even if it makes people uncomfortable and squirm.  It seems that, to the last, Mr. Hopkins is a Burger King fan - he wants it his way.  And what he really wants is to have as few eyes watching as is possible.  And that's not how local governmental officials should be.  If you don't like being stared at, step down.  

I was somewhat amazed that he tried to keep the Selectmen from attending a meeting that they arranged - good for them for insisting on the right thing to do.

And good for them that they approve and welcome all meetings to be audio and video taped - flashlights at work.  Peoples' memories can differ - recordings help a lot.

3. Hollis Austin asked if the Selectmen had the opportunity to view the video tape that he provided them with last week.  He asked the Selectmen what they intend to do to keep meetings open to the public.  Karel responded that they viewed the tape and that the upcoming meeting between Town Counsel and the Budget Committee Study Group is one effort towards improving this situation.  Betsey commented that she is concerned that 24-hour prior notice is insufficient.  She added that the PB, ZBA and Board of Selectmen provide much more notice.   The Selectmen will ask other committees to provide more notice.  Ed stated that the Board of Selectmen firmly believes in the public’s Right-to-Know and that the Selectmen are working towards improvements.

What an endorsement of the public's Right to Know!  I bet Hollis cannot WAIT to tape that meeting.  And huzzahs to the Selectmen to make sure that postings are properly done and posted.

So the question remains - why did Sue and Derek mind being taped? Obviously, the Moultonborough Selectmen think that it is a great idea!

Again, I cannot wait for the Giford Channel to be up and running! 

Continue reading "Is it finally coming to an end?" »

Posted by Skip at 01:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update:

When I'm wrong on a fact, I'm wrong.  I have posted the comment that caught a mistake on my part and am posting it here for emphasis.  As with any of our posts, our policy is that if we are wrong, we will correct it as soon as possible, so consider it done and apologies broadcasted:

Doug Lambert received the most votes? As I recall, it was Bill Phillips most deservingly getting the highest vote total in the most recent election for Budcom. Check your facts...especially when you are so critical when you feel others are not checking theirs. 

-Matt 

I am hard on others when facts are played with foot loose and fancy free...and am on myself when I mess up too! Bill did get the most votes - and why not?  He's a nice enough guy, well liked by all, and certainly endorsed by all during the campaign.

Doug came in second to Bill, and certainly was NOT endorsed by all (but certainly by a sufficient number of voting citizens to be kept on the BudComm). 

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

Interesting....was I even at the same meeting?  After reading the Gilford Steamer article on when the Moultonboro Study Committee came to Gilford, I really had some head spinning issues to deal with.  But as always, a blogger comments, so off we go! 

A visiting budget study committee from Moultonboro got more than just an information session with town officials, as the question of whether the Right-to-Know law had been violated was raised by several attending members of the public.

True!  My feeling is that the RTK law, in spirit if not in letter, was badly mangled on the part of the Moultonborough.  Right from the  poor  posting (merely  the night and the Town) to the mangling of  their Chair going off to a private meeting...but more on that later.

At Town Meeting this year, Moultonboro voters approved the motion to create an exploratory group - the Moultonboro Budget Study Committee - to investigate the possible institution of a Budget Committee in Moultonboro. Chaired by Jerry Hopkins, the group of six traveled to different area municipalities with established Budget Committees, gathering information and opinions from Town Administrators, Boards of Selectmen, School Boards, and individual Budget Committee members.

I watched the VHS video of their meeting two weeks ago, the whole video and not just the YouTube put up by Doug here about Scot Laliberte.

During the committee's visit to Gilford, they first gathered information from the Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator Evans Juris and Assistant Town Administrator Debra Shackett. All were supportive of the institution of the Budget Committee, and stated that the committee benefited the town of Gilford. The Moultonboro committee expressed surprise at the size of Gilford's Budget Committee when the number 13 was confirmed. Hopkins asked Juris about whether the action by the Police Department to create a union was spurred by the action of the Budget Committee.

"No question," Juris said in response.

Fair enough, and fair enough answers from the Administration and the Selectmen as well!

Also attending the meeting were Gilford Budget Committee members Skip Murphy and Doug Lambert, as well as Moultonboro resident Hollis Austin. Both Austin and Lambert were videotaping the proceedings.

Yup, but more by chance than any other reason!

Continue reading "What happened today? - Part 4" »

Posted by Skip at 08:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

As they filed out to go downstairs to the kitchen, I ended up talking with Hollis Caswell, a computer and management consultant that was on the MSC.  He generally asked a few questions.  A specific that I honed in on was when the BudComm put money back into the budget (that the Selectmen had removed) to allow the DPW "reconstruct" a truck for the Fire Dept.  I also was upfront with the "divisive"  issues with the School Board this past year of football and health insurance.

He got called downstairs and I asked if I could join him; he answer was "sure'.  So I followed him into the kitchen and plunked down into a chair away from the table that runs down the middle of the room.  One of the MSC folks asked Doug (with his camera running) and I if we were on the BudComm and we answered in the positive, and then were asked to join them at the table.  Questions ensued.

Although I kept wondering when the School Board reps were going show, I kept answering questions about the mechanics of what we do and why.  Again, I reviewed what can be strongly debated issues, using football and insurance as the flashpoints (petition warrant vs budget inclusion, fairness of SAU support staff not assisting with the cost of their health insurance vs the taxpayers).  The biggest item that I tried to stress is that the BudComm is the watchdog for taxpayers - not bound to either the Town or School Board budgets, policies, or people, we are supposed to watch the dollars for the taxpayers.  I hope that any and all questions got answered and let them know that I'd be willing to travel if they wanted more info.  I also suggested that they speak to Dick Hickok (Gilford BudComm Chair) as well.  I also suggested that since not all people are going to agree with my stances that they talk to others that disagree with me so that they would get a more balanced opinion. 

And why not?  I have nothing to hide.  Whil being called "divisive" is supposed to be as bad as "mean spirited", all that it really means is "you're bad because you don't agree with me".  Frankly, that can be said in either direction, can't it?  Speaking of which....

Well, at some point, it turned out that Sue Allen and Derek Thomlinson of the Gilford School Board decided that they did not want to meet in public session.  From the Citizen's report:

This was something that Allen and Tomlinson apparently were not comfortable with as they refused to have a discussion about Gilford's Budget Committee in open public session.

"As soon as Sue Allen saw me in the corner with my video camera there was a commotion," said Lambert.

Some time later, whispering went on between the MSC Chair, Mr. Hopkins, and another person.  Then it was announced that he was going off to a private meeting with Sue and Derek and that he would return later.

Instead of canceling the meeting outright, Allen and Tomlinson elected to meet with Moultonborough Study Committee Chairman Jerry Hopkins behind closed doors to continue the discussion.

Well, this is a bit of a problem...as he is the head of a publicly appointed, official committee of Moultonboro.  As a former Selectman, he should know well the Right To Know law and its ramifications of doing the public's business in private.

My take on this was since it was a publicly noticed meeting and since there were two citizens from Moultonboro present, he was depriving them of that open meeting.  Frankly, his response when challenged was obvious that he did not like being challenged at all.  I won't go into the details as my memory would not do it justice (and I did not take any notes at the time), but am quite sure that Doug will post the video.  I'll also note that when he returned, Hollis Austin wanted to make sure that any notes that were taken would be made available. 

BTW, Mr. Hopkins also made it quite clear that he was not in favor of being videoed during meetings ("it is intimidating").  Maybe, maybe not - I believe that if things are conducted totally in the open, there should be no fear at all.  The public's business should be as open as possible with no backroom secrets and no handshakes in the dark.  Discussions should be made available by any means necessary so as to ensure the information gets out to the most number of people.  In this vein, I CANNOT wait for Gilford to start broadcasting over the "Gilford Channel".

Thus, there was a bit of a tense time.  I too, wondered why neither Sue or Derek would be willing to speak in public.  Certainly I have a sufficiently thick skin to listen, even if asked to not respond at that time.  But given the "spirited debate" of last year's session, I am probably not on Derek's A list.  But that is personal, and I'm stopping there.

What DOES concern me is that this was a publicly noticed meeting for the Moultonboro folks and yet it does concern me that some Gilford officials opted to not keep discussion public....

Anyways, the summary is that that the MSC did get some information from the Administration, the Selectmen, two members of the BudComm, and I believe two members of the School Board.  I know that the first two gave an endorsement to having a budget committee.  Certainly, both Doug and I believe in it, but also realistically gave notice that not everything is cookies and cream.  

The School Board?  Not so sure.  I hope we find out.  Will Sue and Derek present what they said to Mr. Hopkins?  Or will we have to wait for notes to arrive from Moultonboro?

Posted by Skip at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE: Citizen has now put the story online (Thanks Cutter!)

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

Curious and Curiouser...

At the end of my last post, I wondered why the Moultonboro Budget Committee Study Committee (ok, you come up with a better name!) was going to meet with the School Board.  And yet, coming all the way down, not meet with the BudComm itself.  

Also read the Citizen article (promotion denied -> Frank Tilton is still the Belknap County Republican Chair! Oh well, it was nice while it lasted....I think!  The dead-tree version has it, not the online one yet)

Oh yeah, back to the events of last night.  It seems that when the Moultonboro Study Committee's ("MSC") notification for last night's meeting was posted, according to Hollis Austin of Moultonboro who we met after things broke up, it stated that they were going to meet with the Selectmen, reps from the School Board, and reps from the BudComm.  Also, the location was just posted as Gilford and not a specific time.  He had to call their Chair to get the specific information. 

Why did I note this?  It is hard to have an open meeting when those that are an official committee of a town do not give sufficient notification to its citizens so as to participate.  Chance meetings are one thing; deliberately not providing information is another so as to make having open and transparent government is another. 

Note: speaking of Hollis - you know, you gotta like a guy that is videoing meetings and is willing to make copies of the whole thing for anyone who want to see it.  Tip - use DVDs and not VHS!  Better yet, YouTube it! 

Anyways, this meeting was news to me!  If I hadn't been down there and noticed all these "new" people and called Doug to ask what was going on, we wouldn't have been a part of it or known anything about this.

After all, even Dick Hickok, the BudComm Chair, was unaware of a meeting that had been set up between the MSC and our Board......

Er, are you getting the same impression that I am?

More later 

Posted by Skip at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

UPDATE:

I got a promotion!  At least according to the The Citizen, I'm now the Chair of the Belknap Country Republicans!  Actually, I'm not...just the Gilford Chair.  The County Chair is filled, quite well, by Frank Tilton.

As I said at the end of this post, I'll be commenting more on this event in my next one....and will comment on some of what the Citizen reported as well. 

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

Growing up, we've almost all done it.  As parents, we've probably almost all seen it in our kids.  You know the look....caught red handed in the cookie jar when they know they shouldn't.  And as they turn the corner out of the kitchen and run smack into you, the look on their faces are priceless.  Yeah, we put on the stern face, just hoping that we don't break out into laughter before we send them on their way.  And even let them keep the cookie sometimes!

But after a couple of times, it isn't  isn't funny any more.  And it has to be a habit that has to be broken, quick.  Because then you graduate to times when you arrive just before "the crime" has happened and you see the same face, quickly followed by that "darn" face.  Or, if they get away with it, it continues unless there are consequences applied to their decisions and actions.

And as parents, we know that there are consequences to our inactions (with respect to our offspring's behavior as well). 

And it isn't cute in adults at all. Especially when they are caught in something that you know that they now realize that perhaps they shouldn't have been doing. 

And especially those that are tasked to govern and the expectation is that they know the laws regulating how they are to behave.  Or worse, they don't understand that there are rules that govern how they should govern, and then blatantly ignore them. Or decide that the laws that govern the rest of us can be bent or rationalized away for their purposes.

No, I'm not talking about our County Delegation. A judge has already decided that issue, at least the first iteration.  And will again, very soon.

Normally, I cannot attend our Selectmen Board meetings....it is impossible when one works during the day.  While it may be more convenient for Town employees, it effectively discriminates against the working class.  But today, given a later start and knowing the agenda, I hopped it down to Town Hall to try to catch some of it (figuring that they put Doug and the Energy Committee proposal off before, maybe I could catch part of it).  

Well, I walked in, sat down, and discovered that I had done so just in time to leave....but the meeting was not yet over.    

Continue reading "What happened today?" »

Posted by Skip at 08:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Presidential Candidate '08 Senator McCain's "Straight Talk" Express is coming to Gilford:

Gilford Fire Station

9am

Tuesday, June 5, 2007

The Grok has gone to a number of the McCain campaign events (Town Hall in Franklin, McCain's NH HQ during the first debate, and a number of the blogger calls).  While there are issues with which we disagree with the good Senator on, we have found him to be likeable, honest, and (no surprise) straight forward.  He takes questions from anyone (a big difference between his and the other blogger con-calls!), allows follow up questions, and generally seems to enjoy "talking with the folks".

I have found him to be honest with his beliefs - he says what he believes, and believes in those ideas strongly.  He has shown that he will stick with those stances even if he could benefit politically by "going with the flow" and abandoning them.  But no, he sticks to his guns, and whether you like him or not, agree with him or not, you HAVE to respect those stances and the courage it is taking to stick with them.

If you have the time, go!

 

Posted by Skip at 06:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)