GilfordGrok

People always ask me at this time of year how I plan on voting. Given that involvement in local politics can sometimes be a thankless task, I am always happy to hear that people think enough of me and my opinion to ask. In fact, I am HONORED that this is the case. In the interest of brevity, I will spare the readers a lengthy tome on the matter at hand—Tuesday’s vote.

For Selectman, I am with Dale “Chan” Eddy. Having known him for a number of years, I know his conservative viewpoint is steeped in Yankee frugality. Coupled with his skills as an engineer, I have no doubt he is just what a town like Gilford needs as a Selectmen. His opponent talks a good game, but in the end, is part of the “business as usual” crowd.

For the Budget Committee, one must consider the recent past in context of the vote. Because there is no longer a majority of “rubber stampers” holding seats on this most important of committees in Town, we have witnessed the growth of both the Town and School District slow to a manageable level, with the school budget actually shrinking. The budget writers are keenly aware that they cannot get away with “business as usual” when it comes to spending thanks to the extra layer of scrutiny posed by the Budget Committee. This is different than the way things used to be. By re-electing David “Skip” Murphy, current Chair Dick Hickok, and newcomer Jean Lavin, we can keep this taxpayer-friendly trend going. Make no mistake about it-- a vote for anyone else on the ballot is a vote for more spending.

As to the warrant, there is much too much to discuss here. I just hope that folks will join me in saying “no” to the onerous new regulations posed by the fire code change proposed in Article 8. This seeks to fix a problem that does not exist in Town. I plan on voting “no” on the police station as well. While it is no doubt a good plan, I want to wait one more year to see which way the economy shakes out. Articles 26 through 29 ask us to approve monies for so-called “outside agencies.” I will vote “no,” as this is not the proper use of local property tax dollars. Vote “yes” on the salaries and vendor payments appearing in the Annual Report. What could possibly be wrong with giving more information to people that choose to read it? For the rest of the ballot, I recommend going with either the Budget Committee recommendations, or try to get a copy of the Annual Letter from the Gilford Taxpayers Coalition. See you Tuesday at the polls!

Doug

Posted by Doug at 06:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Regular readers, having read Terry's post below responding to the whining demand in a letter published in Saturday's Daily Sun (page 4) by poor Phyllis Corrigan seeking an apology from him for "being sexist," should know that her plight doesn't end there. And by "plight," I mean the thin-ness of her skin.

One of the tasks required of a Budget Committee member doing his/her job responsibly on behalf of Gilford taxpayers is the ability to say "no" when it is warranted. Up until recent years, most members of this important committee lacked the fortitude to do such a thing. Much like when dealing with children, it is always easier to say "yes" at times, rather than face a fight. Oh sure, some, like John O'Brien and Phyllis Corrigan, talk a conservative game in the hallways and away from view, but their voting record belies a different picture: big spenders. Simply put, in these economic times, these are the LAST people we need in charge of our local property tax dollars.

Yesterday on MTNP radio, we discussed the local races, and I stated that Phyllis Corrigan should stick to the Garden Club circuit and leave the tax oversight to others more up to the job. Having served with Phyllis once on the Budcomm, I agree with Terry that, while she's a nice person, she was never up to the real task at hand. We have enough people in life making emotion-driven decisions, and I don't want such an approach to spending MY money. Tough times demand tough people, and now, we have plenty of evidence that if there's one thing Mrs. Corrigan is NOT, it's tough. Let me explain...

This morning on my way out of Sacred Heart Church-- directly in front of the altar, in fact-- I was rudely accosted by Phyllis' husband Dennis, who got in my face demanding I apologize to his wife, accusing me of "being sexist," much like Terry was in yesterday's letter. Dennis did this in front of my son, my wife, and several friends and fellow Churchgoers. As I explained to my son after, this is the equivalent of being accused of being a "racist" for opposing the Magic Obama or being "homophobic" because one is against gay marriage-- people with no argument to make often resort to name calling. Rather than engage in a discussion of the issues, such folks create a straw man, seeking to knock it-- and the offender-- down with some righteous demand for an apology for the perceived aggrievance. Sorry Dennis, not this guy.

Oh, and lest anyone think this to be a one-time happening, with the emotion of the race nearing its climax, think again because in fact, the Corrigans have shown this to be the standard operating procedure of their political "careers"... being aggrieved and demanding apologies from those who "dare" take them on.

Of course, Exhibit A is yesterday's letter seeking an apology from Terry. Exhibit B is the event today in Church as I described above. Exhibit C-- the "clincher," if you will, is an e-mail sent to me LAST year during the political season when BOTH Dennis and his wife Phyllis were candidates- him for Selectman, and she (again) for Budget Committee (they both, thankfully, lost). And once again, Mr. Corrigan was upset with what he heard on the radio, or, more specifically, what he DIDN'T hear, which was a desire on his part for us to somehow acknowledge his poor wife...

----- Original Message -----
From: Dennis Corrigan
To: doug@granitegrok.com
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:41 PM
Subject: Radio Show

Listened today while you fawned over Terry Stewart who agrees with nothing you stand for in this town.  Then you had the nerve to say: vote for folks who have been on he Budget Committee and you mention Brent and Sue and TERRY – ONE YEAR- and you don’t mention Phyllis (six years)! I think you are intimated by her. You are an evil man and a right wing NUT! You better hope I win or I will spend my time on every level of media to show the person you are. Don’t you dare take your disagreement with me out on my wife. I demand you call her and apologize for not mentioned her. Then call me and apologize. Then at 9:00am next Saturday tell your listeners that you screwed up and forgot to mention her 6 years of service. Have the courage to answer at least one of my communications.  You are messing with the wrong guy.

 Dennis M. Corrigan

346 Liberty Hill Road, Gilford NH 03249

After that, he had the good sense to offer an apology which I graciously accepted, knowing that sometimes people hit the "send" button on the e-mail without thinking things through. That was then. Fast-forwarding to the present, I find myself experiencing deja-vue all over again. Obviously, last year's incident wasn't an isolated thing-- for Mr. & Mrs. Corrigan, feeling offended and demanding apologies is, for them, business as usual. Sorry folks, I'm not buying it, and I'm NOT apologizing for speaking my mind... and the truth.

Posted by Doug at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"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 | Comments (0)

As we head into the final week before the elections here in town, Skip and I will be giving our thoughts as to how we plan on voting (no doubt 'Grok contributor Terry Stewart will as well) , and, naturally, why you should follow suit. For the opening post, we'll focus on the candidates for seats that are contested. [NOTE: While Peter Millham is on the ballot again for Town Moderator, it is our understanding that this could be his last turn at the wheel. It occured to me that Mr. Paul Simoneau might be a good choice in the future, and I encourage him to consider it.]

On the Town side, for Selectman, we heartily endorse our friend and fellow blogger Dale C. "Chan" Eddy. Having served on the FPC and the Energy committee, he knows his way around town & how things are done. Additionally, his knowledge of the high-tech world and how things CAN be done with technology will be a welcome addition to the present Board's capabilities. Independently minded and, of course, frugal with a buck, Chan Eddy is the embodiment of small-town New Hampshire and is exactly what we need at the helm going forward in questionable times. Unlike his opponent, there is no connection to the usual "good 'ole boys" network and the "business as usual" crowd...

• VOTE DALE CHANNING EDDY  SELECTMAN

[TO BE CONTINUED-- Check back soon]

Posted by Doug at 05:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

During Election Day, it seems that a number of teachers brought their classes outside to see the folks that were politicking for their favorite candidates.  I would assume that they were having a "teachable" moment in giving a first hand experience to the kids on how American democracy works.  A great idea!

When I went to vote, I went over to talk with Greg Knytych (presently Ward 1 Laconia City Councilor) who was the Republican candidate for NH Senate District 4.  We chit-chatted for a bit and then he mentioned that the kids had been coming outside.  But then he related this:

A teacher came over with her kids and talked about what was going on.  One of the kids (a younger one) pointed to a sign next to Greg.  It was a Jeb Bradley sign, Republican candidate for NH's First Congressional District and the kid asked "What is that"?

Greg said he was horrified at the teacher's "He is running for Congress.  He is a Republican - and a bad man.  We don't want him."

Note: Jeb supported school vouchers and choice.  In a case like this, I can understand why parents would want to as well.  I would not want my kids at a school where a blatant case of partisanship was demonstrated in front of her or his students.

I've known Greg for a while now, and I have no doubt that what he was telling me was the truth (he gave me permission to talk about this). The problem is for anyone to try to explain this away as an isolated incident is that I have heard from students who were able to vote (and some parents of kids of voting age) that they were told by their teacher that if they voted and voted for the candidate of the teacher's choice, they'd get extra credit.  And no, the parents were afraid of retaliation if they had come forward. I, having no kids in the school system, don't worry about that anymore (but I used to).

Continue reading "I almost forgot this...and wonder why school vouchers are gaining traction." »

Posted by Skip at 04:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

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)

Continue reading "Gilford Republicans elect Chair, participate in straw poll." »

Posted by Doug at 02:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Bumped and updated:

Don't forget, tonight is the reorganizational meeting for the Gilford Republicans!

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

UPDATE: The time of the event is

7 pm

AND NOT

5 pm 

Or, at least announce that it is being restarted!  One of the initiatives that the Republican Party believes in is restarting local organizations and get active. 

Jeb Bradley, former Congressman, will be the special speaker!

Thus:

For Immediate Release  
Date: 5/20/07

Contact: Skip Murphy
Phone: 603-524-4794

The Gilford Republican Committee To Hold Caucus

The Gilford Town Republican Committee announced today that it will hold its re-organizational meeting on 5/29/07 at 7:00 pm. The location will be at the Pheasant Ridge Country Club (140 Country Club Road, Gilford, 603-524-7808) and Jeb Bradley, former NH Congressman will be the featured speaker. The purpose of this meeting will be to elect officers for the next two years. All registered Republicans are invited to attend. If you have questions, please call Skip Murphy at 524-4794

Posted by Skip at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Click here to view the video.

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

Dale Dormody 879

Terry Stewart 871

The Gunstock Acres Water District, per the Municipal Budget Act, gets to appoint a representative to the Budget Committee, which they have done. At a meeting of the Board, it was unanimously decided to

appoint Terry Stewart to the Budget Committee

And thus, Gilford embarks on a new year of politics, budgets, and excitement. All citizens of Gilford should be proud today, as the body politic is alive and well!

Let the games begin!

Posted by Doug at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Jeff Madon decided to post a comment to Doug's posting (I think he meant mine).  While many blog authors will continue conversations within the comments section, I've decided to create a post instead.

I frequently keep up on your Grok postings, but have never posted a comment, up until now. Your postings are certainly good reading. 

Well, THANK YOU!  Believe it or not, we do appreciate anyone reading either of the 'Groks.  We especially appreciate it when someone disagrees with us!  A conversation showing different points of view can only make things, shall we say, lively! 

One can be both proactive, fiscally responsible, value Town employees, and do it all in a respectful way.  Overall mandate?  You guys love numbers, do the math: 

I'm not really sure what Jeff means by this, so I will do a rudimentary analysis on the BudComm results:

William Phillips        981      18.60%

Douglas Lambert     971      18.41%     

Terry Stewart           876      16.61%

Based on your split, the top three vote winners received 53.62% of the vote.  I will also point out that all three received the 'Grok endorsement.

With so many candidates in the race for Bud Com, you never mention the bottom 4.  Looks like a split vote to me: 

                    Dale Dormody         876        16.61%

                    Kevin Roy               841        15.95%

                    Delores Seager       381          7.22%

                    E. Scott Cracraft       197         3.74%

                    William Knightly       151         2.86%

Correct observation, but what does it prove other then the top three vote winners received more than the bottom five?  Split vote?  Only in that some won their seats and some did not.  According to your comment's arrangement, they lost. 

Note:  based on the "bag pull" Mr. Dormody won.  However, tomorrow's recount will tell who actually won the third seat.

The answer to your own "FUD" posting is yes - looming.  Looming, when admittedly flawed (but left uncorrected) salary studies, salary deceleration formulas and benefit contribution increases are in your crosshairs, and always will be.  If that's your solution to the apparent fiscal crisis Gilford is experiencing, so be it.  I just won't sit back and let it happen.  

Always be.  Here is the premise:

• 60% of both budgets are salaries and benefits.  To ignore the rise in this budget component would be fiscally imprudent.
  
• Budgets have been multiples of the inflation rate averaged over the last few years.
• Budgets are rising faster than wages in the private sector.

Do the math.

Flawed salary study?  The stats have been up for public review and correction for quite a number of months.  Only one person bothered to review them - and that person was not from the Fire Department.  If you look at the postings, where problems were found, corrections were issued.  

If you have better numbers from a public source that anyone can review, show them. NOTHING was hidden or secret - at any time any one could have brough alternatives. Certainly, you did not bother to provide such. 

As far as the finding fault with the report, I present the assumptions (once again) for the from the executive summary presented to the Budget Committee.  It was a targeted, narrowly focused study:

Purpose of the Report:

To examine the relative salary ranges of positions that are common to other Towns in the same population grouping (5,000 – 9,999) as Gilford to see if there are any disparities.

Overall Result:

Please see the Summary Table.

Data Sources:

State of New Hampshire Web Site (www.nh.gov)

New Hampshire Local Government Center (NH Municipal Association) (www.NHGLC.org)

Number of Towns in the survey: 32

Number of Positions compared: 39

Methodology:

Data was sourced from the State of NH as well as the NH Municipal Association

A series of charts were constructed for each relevant position, noting how many town had that given position (note: not all towns have all positions). Gilford's position in all charts is shown in bold lettering.

For each position, two charts were created:

• Town ranked in alphabetical order

• Town ranked by the maximum of each minimum / maximum pay range reported.

For the first chart of each position, the following was computed:

• The Number of towns having that position

• The Minimum amount for that position

• The Maximum amount for that position

• The Average values were computed using the total of the Maximums reported.

• The Median values were computed by using the total of the Maximum reports

The second chart took the data from the first chart and re-ranked the report from each town by Maximum value. Gilford's standing within that ranking was then computed (1 through N, where N was the number of towns reporting on that position). Further, the Maximal value of Gilford's salary range was compared to the Average and the Median computed in the first chart and a percentage above, equal to, or below the group results was computed.

In addition, other charts relating to land area, population density, valuations, and family income data are listed in order to provide a greater sense of context when comparing the towns.

Caveats:

• Please note that the Maximum value was used for each salary range as many Towns did not report minimums for many positions.

• Please also note that Fire Department positions reported here must be reviewed carefully due to the myriad of ways that personnel can be compensated (volunteer, call, part time, full time) by type as well as pay type (hourly, salary, per call, lump sum).

• All salary ranges, for comparison purposes, have been converted to yearly dollar amounts wherever possible. Some positions from some towns (i.e., fire departments) were dropped from this study as it was not clear how compensation actually worked.

No need to post my comment on your site, just thought I'd pass it along in case you missed it. Thank you.

To not post it would not be right 

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

Posted by Doug at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Last week, Alec ruminated on if the voters issued a “clear message” last week. While the question of “what has Gilford decided to be” were answered in some areas, he was “baffled” with what he thought was the defining race. I am perplexed that his belief that a tie for the third open seat defines his consternation.

How to categorize the voting? With a checklist total of around 6,000 registered voters, only about 2,000 actually cast their votes. Should a 33% turnout be considered “bad”? Or given that it was only a local election, could it be considered reasonable? Regardless, the Town can only benefit when more people come out to fulfill their civic duty and vote.

Let's review the major “race”. Much of the campaign rhetoric did not center around the proposed Town and SAU budgets (what was deleted, what was added) but the “tone and civility” (or lack thereof) claims wrapping around those budgets. With a more conservative bent of the BudComm, many cheered and many wailed over the decisions made.

And Mr. Lambert put himself square in the middle of it. Unabashedly conservative, given to spouting political theory from the likes of Machiavelli to the Founding Fathers (among others) and not one to remain silent on pretty much any topic, he earned the ire of those opposing his views. All one would have to do to verify this is to review how often Mr. Lambert was mentioned in the local papers over the last budget season. Thus, a number stepped into the fray, smelling either political opportunity or altruistically seeing a chance “to make things better”.

This is where I disagree with Alec's assessment of the race and who were the main competitors in the race. Into the fray came Mr. Dormody who made “tone and civility” the issue of the campaign and the basis of the election and essentially against Mr. Lambert.

As Alec correctly points out name recognition would play a major role. Supporters on both sides wrote Letters to the Editor to all of the local papers, partisans on both sides talked to persuade the undecided, and calls were made to get out their vote. Also, for the first time in Gilford's history, much campaigning was conducted on the 'Net with GilfordBudget going head to head with GilfordGrok. A good thing, as it can readily make the opposing political views an active event for all – educating the electorate and quickening the pace of ideas than what is possible with the traditional media. While Alec correctly points out that the 'Grok and the Taxpayers Coalition endorsed for Lambert and Stewart, I discount the 'Grok a bit in this as the 'Grok is only two schlubs (albeit, outspoken) and only one possessing a history in local politics. Match that up, for instance, against the Firefighters who are always involved in local elections) and the ads for Mr. Dormody.

Agree: the surprise of the race was the tie between Sirs Dormody and Stewart. Disagree: this was not the defining event. For much of the campaign, it was not Stewart / Dormody; rather, it was Lambert / Dormody. The answer could, however, be seen as something else entirely than the personalities.

Take the results in toto – would it be wrong to say that voters have turned conservative in fiscal issues and those that do not listen will pay a price? Putting aside Mr. Phillips (as ALL sides approved his candidacy), the second highest vote getter was a conservative. The third highest vote getter was a conservative no matter which person wins Thursday's recount as both Sirs Stewart and Dormody announced that stance.

After all, did anyone successfully run by stressing that the Town or SAU should be spending more?

The voters also rejected the SAU's budget for the second time in three years,. While the controversial issue of Gilford Football certainly had an impact, money cannot be disregarded. Now couple this the defeat of their generalized Building and Grounds Warrant.

Now add Saltmarsh. While I believe that this issue became “collateral damage”, it's failure to pass also adds up to one thing being said by the voters in Town – it didn't matter the “value” if it would also amount to higher taxes. At about $4,300 per person, the combined Town and SAU budgets have folks finally saying “enough, do not cross this line”, that the balance between private, public, and retired sectors needs to be brought back into balance.

Oh, back to the tie. When it was announced, there was a collective “huh?” from those waiting on the election results. A fluke? Certainly, but should be taken more as in the realm of oddity than a message on the state of the voters mind.

Posted by Skip at 08:38 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

                                        Mr. Phil Arel:   "The Budget Committee is out of touch!"

                                        Mr. Paul Blandford:   "You sold those people short"

                                        Mr. Buckman: "The Budget Committee has shown contempt

                                                        for the voters"

                                        Civility needs to be restored - the voters demand it.

                                    Doug Lambert reelected (issues over style)

                                    A great showing for newcomer Terry Stewart!

                                    Congratulations to Bill and Gus!
 

                                    The School Board budget defeated (as recommended by the

                                                    Budget Committee)

                                    The School Board Warrant Article for maintenance defeated 

                                                   (as recommended by the Budget Committee)

WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT! 

Posted by Skip at 09:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

As I sit here in limbo regarding the pending outcome of the tied Gilford budget committee seat, I have a few thoughts to share.

.
This is another prime example that every vote counts. For those of you that sat this one out because you thought your vote didn’t count: Your missing vote would have made a big difference for 876 voters, a town clerk and two candidates!

.
I would like to thank all of the great people that I met at the polls and especially those that supported me in so many ways. It is a foregone conclusion that the outcome of this tie is irrelevant to the message delivered by the voters of Gilford.

.

The voters didn’t buy into that “negative tone” scheme and supported Doug Lambert’s position on the budget. It should be obvious that the ongoing attempt to alter the 50 year operating procedures of the budget committee was rejected as well. It’s obvious that the voters have no interest in the proposed “Best Practices” scheme as well and it too should be shelved. There is no question that the support of the Tax Payer coalition played a key role in Doug’s victory and I am also very appreciative of the Tax Payer coalition’s endorsement. As a new comer to Gilford politics, I went into this first bid for office knowing that my roll was mostly introductory and winning would have been a nice bonus. The voters simply piled on by casting 876 votes against a long time resident whose wife is the Library director and had the support of the FF’s. It would be safe to assume that he and Kevin Roy also had the support of the library supporters and the entire town employee base, including the school district. Dale Dormody and Kevin Roy’s Candidacy was an all out blitz from the special interest groups to support their spending and to oust Doug Lambert.

.

I would hope that even they have a Grasp for the obvious and see that the voters overwhelmingly rejected that concept, regardless of this tie breaking outcome.

.
Congratulations to the voters of Gilford, Doug Lambert and the Tax Payer Coalition.
I can’t thank you all enough!

.
Terry Stewart

Posted by Doug at 05:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Please vote for me, Doug Lambert, for a seat on the Budget Committee on March 13th.

Posted by Doug at 05:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Study. Call. Demand Question. Vote.

Next week is the final step of the SB2 process – the March 13^th vote. For many, this is the culmination of hours spent in preparing, defending and examining budgets, and crafting Warrant Articles. However, others are just ramping up their activities for their issues or as candidates for the Town's elected offices in marshaling their supporters, ordering and setting up signs, and getting their messages out both in real world and in cyberspace.

And there are a lot of positions to fill. It is surprising how many in Town volunteer their time and effort to make Gilford a better place to live. In all, there are over seventy elected positions on the various boards with nineteen slots open for this year's elections: Selectman, Treasurer, Welfare Director, Trustee of Trust Funds, Trustee of Public Library (2), Budget Committee (3), Board of Fire Engineers, Conservation Committee (3), Planning Board, Recreation Commission (2), Zoning Board of Adjustment (2), and the Historic District / Heritage Commission. No matter their reasons, political leanings, philosophical outlooks of the people who give of their time, they should be thanked.

When March 13^th arrives, responses will differ. For some, it's a yawner, just another day with no differences between it and any other. For others, it is the day to vote, but done with a sense of civic duty driving them rather than any particular interest in issues or people. However, for the town activists that enjoy local politics and process, this is the highlight of the year. Regardless, politics is the way that things get decided or done when groups of people have to figure out amongst themselves how they will live with each other and agree to be governed. March 13^th is a major closure point for a year.

However...

Continue reading "Analytically Speaking - Study. Call. Demand Question. Vote." »

Posted by Skip at 11:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In the same way that Doug and I have been taking it on the chin from those that oppose our philosophy and seek to muddy the waters by bringing up "tone and civility", fellow blogger Jim Dannis of Milford is facing the same thing.

One large difference - in Gilford, the local press (the Citizen,  the Sun, and the Gilford Steamer) have pretty much played it straight - factual and pretty much down the middle.  And for that, we give them a big "THANKS".

Not so much for the local paper in Milford.  Read Jim's blog entry here as to why.  Then read the editorial.

In his case, the ability to reach the population of Milford directly is changing the tone and focus of the issues facing the town - swinging it from a town orientation to a taxpayer orientation.  The entrenched establishment is working as hard as they can to fight this philosphical move brought forward by Jim.  As he points out (emphasis mine):

While I’m flattered by the attention, it’s important to understand what is really going on.

The Milford media market is becoming a mini-version of what we see on a national level. It’s all about issues and issues advocacy.

There’s a constant battle between two sharply opposing belief sets about town government.

On the one side, the two selectmen with blogs see town government as working for taxpayers.

Government should provide good customer service. Government should be affordable. Government should be open and accountable. Every citizen should be treated fairly and equally. Government employees should be incentivized with rewards for good performance and accountability for poor performance. Selectmen should work hard and be knowledgeable about the town’s finances, budgets and practices so they can provide meaningful oversight of town government on behalf of taxpayers.

On the other side, there are those who believe just the opposite -- that taxpayers work for town government.

They strive to keep town government happy and well-fed, regardless of taxpayer cost. They don’t want open government and accountability because it will show up the sharp differences in expectations and results between the private sector and the public sector. They don’t want performance pay or similar incentives for employees because this may make some employees unhappy. As advocates for town government rather than taxpayers, there is no need to understand finance, budgets or operations. The “good enough for government work” standard is all that’s needed.

These are huge, fundamental differences in beliefs and approach.

The local paper is an open, unabashed advocate for town government, not taxpayers. Their agenda is to advance that position in any way possible. Page one of the playbook is attack the message; page two is attack the messenger. It’s all part of the game.

Sounds familiar, in a little bit of a different guise, doesn't it?  Here, we hear about "tone and civility".  We hear that we are destroying the town.  We hear that people are tired of seeing Gilford in the news.  They are tired of the discord.

In short, sweep any disagreements under the rug (with the rest of the "dirty laundry").  After all, we are GILFORD!  We don't do that here!

Continue reading "Jim Dannis - Toxic Selectman" »

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

Alec O'Meara of the Gilford Steamer left a comment on my previous post, "Well, the Steamer asked to get Grokked, right?".  Rather than just leaving it as a comment, I thought that it deserved a post of its own, so I am putting it up here:

And now that it has been reproduced unaltered, it does deserve discussing... 

Continue reading "A conversation with Alec" »

Posted by Skip at 07:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Comments by Terry Stewart – 2007 Gilford Budget Committee Candidate

I find myself in a quandary regarding Mr. Dormody’s request for me to sign his code of ethics. For starters, this gives the illusion that ethics have been violated which is clearly not the case. Furthermore, who is Mr. Dormody to make this request? From what I’ve witnessed, uncivil behavior simply means disagreeing with some people. Since my return from my son’s wedding I’ve heard clear support from many people that have no trouble understanding my position on the issues. For Mr. Dormody’s benefit I’m going to clarify that position since he clearly has questions that most everyone knows the answers to.

.

1) I do have a problem with using children as props for political purposes but in the context that I described in my editorials, it’s particularly shameful. Divorced parents use children in this way to leverage a position with the opposing spouse. When the court system finds this out they remove the child from the negative environment. No sir, I do not believe we should ever use our children as political props to solve complex adult problems and I make NO apologies for that. The disagreement on football funding was NEVER about football’s existence. NO ONE disputed the fact that football has a very positive effect on children. I know this because both of my children played football and it made a huge positive impact on their lives. As much as some people tried to make it about football, much like the claims of uncivil behavior, it never was. It was ALWAYS about the funding method and who should decide. I believe the Gilford School Board and the Gilford Friends of Football leadership has done a huge disservice to the football teams and the community. They could have brought the program to the voters, as promised, in the form of a warrant article. They would have garnished the support of the community and received the full amount of funding they needed. Instead they dragged the process through the mud and attempted to shove the program down the throats of the community in a very negative way (I believe the the Citizen recorded correctly that it was School Board member Derek Tomlinson that "shouted" at Doug Lambert). They have created a divided community that, win or lose, will not “fully” support the program. They have also placed the entire school budget in jeopardy; shame on them. I believe in the concept of a football program done correctly.

.

2) Should I attend all Committee meetings? As an average taxpayer I can chose to attend any public meetings I wish however as an elected official I would make every effort to attend all required meetings. I would weight the public’s input of those meeting accordingly. For example; a public meeting of 200 attendees represents less than 5% of the towns registered voters. Of those 200 attendees 2/3 of them have a direct conflict of interest. Not that their opinions aren’t important, the key word is “weighted”. In my humble opinion, ANY CANDIDATE that believes that the opinion of 200 voters should carry 100% of their consideration toward budget votes should not be elected because they are ignoring the other 4000 or so voters.

.
3) Rubber stamping elected officials? ...

Continue reading "Stewart responds..." »

Posted by Doug at 05:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Doug at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Analytically Speaking
 

It all depends on what kind of label you are talking about and to what it is has been attached (and who does the attaching). On products, labels are good things, as they outline what the product is, who markets it, what it does, and the “stuff” that makes up that product. Often times, labels go beyond this factual information by including marketing suggesting that the product is the best for its stated purpose such as “Number One!”, or “Prescribed more often by”! Hype? Perhaps, but descriptions help - try figuring out what an unmarked box of “something” is supposed to be without one!

Labels aren't just for “products” and this will be proved true during the coming year. After all, given that the November elections and holidays are now past, now is that peculiar Silly Season that comes to NH once every four years – the Presidential Primary.

Yup, politicos of all stripes seeking the highest office in the land are marching to our frozen state (much to the dismay of the established media – “what, Ma and Pa Kettle's Diner and Sleep-in AGAIN!”). Ever optimistic, these high office seekers (who see the next President every time they look into the mirror), will trudge around our environs to do the “meet and greet” and participating in our vaunted “retail politics”. Putting on the “camera” faces and smiles to look good to the public and for the media, they seek to make the needed impressions so that they can wear the coveted label “NH Primary Winner”.

In doing so, other types of labels will be slung around like they were wood chips at a lumber yard. This person will be called this, another will be called that, and retractions, submissions, subterfuge, clarifications, changes, and the like will be come everyday fare. To what end? Obfustication comes to mind – using labels to mask what they really are about or to throw a cloud over where their opponents stand on the same issues.

Thus, many people decry the use of labels, simply because of the misuse of those labels during these intensive periods of politicking. Others are against them as this pigeonholes them when their strategy calls for being other than what they really are.

Yet, they do serve useful purposes when used properly. For instance, there is a move afoot in Laconia to return to the time of partisan elections. Already there are those that, almost in knee-jerk reaction, that have made it known that they are against this, as “partisan” has become a “word non grata”. Why? It is an identifiable mark, Democrat or Republican, on those that may wish to remain otherwise unidentified as to their political foundations (if they have any).

With non-partisan elections, anyone can run and no one has to declare how they feel on the issues. For example, can you tell me, of the eight people running for the three BudComm positions, who is liberal, moderate, or conservative? Or, if you prefer, Republican or Democrat? Or do they all meld into that “unknown” category, making it harder to figure out their stands? Without a track record to review, they can say pretty much anything that they would want while revealing little, springing a surprise after elections.

For some, a return to partisan elections really means a return to a focus on political party affiliations. In my eyes, this would be a good thing, as the “unknown” would be a thing of the past. By associating with a party, the public would have an idea from the get go as to how candidates may vote on issues. While it is always true that there will always be the exceptions to the rule, it is hard for people to be other than what they really are over time.

So why is this important? Not everyone is a political junkie, hanging on every nuance from a town or board meeting or newspaper article. However, they do have an innate feeling as to the general differences between Republicans (generally conservative) and Democrats (generally liberals). While there are wackos at each end of the spectrum, those a bit closer to the middle of each party will generally share an outlook with that party on what government is supposed to be and do.

So why would this be good for Gilford? With a “label”, one should know how a candidate would stand on most issues, thus leaving more time to discover the exceptions to the rule and how those may affect a vote for or against a particular candidate. Or, give one a chance to sharpen their questions for a given candidate to find the truth...

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

• Bill Phillips
• Doug Lambert
• Terry Stewart
• Bill Knightly
• Dale Dormody
• Kevin Roy
• E. Scott Cracraft
• Delores Seager

It would behoove the astute voter to fathom which ones are representing the various special interest groups benefitting from escalating town and school budgets. Who in the list will ask the questions, introduce motions, and not be afraid to seek alternative means of accomplishing leaner, more efficient methods and procedures, despite the intense pressures from spenders? I'll bet you know who it is... and who it isn't.

Posted by Doug at 09:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Dale Dormody and his Library Director spouse both can be found on the list of petition signers wishing to eliminate the Budget Committee! Can you believe the audacity?! He believes that the BudCom in Gilford ought not to exist anymore... AND HE'S RUNNING FOR A SEAT ON IT!!!!

Posted by Doug at 03:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Times, they are a'changin......

Bloggers vs. the Old Way of Governing

(H/T: NewsBusters) 

Face it, three years ago, this scenario (the top guy in the Senate being rebuffed on a favorite issue) would NEVER have happened.  Senator Reid must still be shaking his head - how could these "people sitting around their computers in their pajamas" have this effect?  I spent this long to get this high, and a bunch of key pounders turn up like a humongous boulder (think Indiana Jones) flattening my version of earmark "reform"?

How times have changed.... 

Blogs are increasingly playing major roles in politics at all levels; just as in the past, new methods are supplanting the traditional ones.  Who can remember lately hearing a true stump speech (on a real tree stump!), a whistle stop address, a lecturn hall speech, true oratory (no Doug, you don't count!) deliveries and debates (think Lincoln and Douglas).  While the print media has stayed constant, radio, news reels, and then TV played an increasingly important role.  While they continue to be important (with vast amounts of money poured into tightly crafted ads), the new frontier is the Internet.

Even a plain web site is passe.  Lexis-Nexis, the Memory Hole, Google, Yahoo, and other Internet sites provide rich archives to see who said what and when (often to the embarrasment of the clueless pol trying to change his or her spots).  Blogs debate the issues of the day, often in terms and words not generally seen in typical political environs as bloggers and commenters oftentimes throwing all civility to the wind....and that's not even for campaigns!

Now, the cutting edge of political debate may well be a podcast vs a YouTube video, linked to and being linked from multiple blogs.  No longer is political time measured in months, weeks, or even days.  A critical blog entry by a political operative may flash into existence in the morning rebutted by a orchestrated video spotlighting the actual target of the attack, deflecting the objections, with a podcast of allies on the side.

The phrase of "connected politics" now has a brand new meaning - those people seeking political office know that the new media is where the attention is at - smart, connected bloggers with a political bent are now in high demand to help run national campaigns and help shape the outbound and critical messages, helping the less savvy navigate the sometimes turbulent seas of the new media.

Bloggers everywhere are changing the tone, tenor, and focus of politics everywhere and at every level.  People may not like it (certainly those that are not used to the rough and tumble ways of "everyone has a comment - or ten), but as long as free speech remains a basic tenent of our society, it is here to stay.

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

One of the sites that I have permanently bookmarked is BlogNetNews for New Hampshire.  Simplistically, it is a blog aggregator - it watches over a number of bloggers that are located in New Hampshire (including this blog and GraniteGrok).

One other blog appears there that both Doug and I look into from time to time, and that is Jim Dannis's blog.  Jim is a Selectman from Milford, and is using his blog similar to how Doug and I are running this one - commenting on what is going on in town.  Specifically, as he is a Selectman, he is trying to open up his Town's political goings on as we are trying to here. 

I saw that Jim had a post on 2007 Salary Survey, so of COURSE I had to look.  While it did not turn out to be an actual study as I had done, I did leave a couple of comments (to the effect of what was going on here).  To say that it generated a few more comments is an understatement.  With the permission of Jim, I am going to abstract out those comments that I want to discuss further. 

Note: not all of the comments from Jim's post will make it to here, and it may take a little bit for me to comment on the ones that I wish to....pls be patient! 

Continue reading "News from Milford" »

Posted by Skip at 10:00 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)

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

“Gov. John Lynch and New Hampshire’s four congressmen called for the resignation of Executive Councilor Ray Burton Monday, citing recent revelations about the criminal record of one of his campaign workers.”

“Blotner entered the race for Executive Council because he believes that having a member of one political party run as the candidate of two parties subverts the democratic process.  He stated, ‘You are either a Republican, Democrat, Independent, etc. and should, therefore, only be on the ballot as such.’”

Posted by Doug at 08:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

DISRUPTING THE DELPHI
By Lynn M. Stuter

Note: The Delphi is being used at all levels of government to move meetings to preset conclusions. For the purposes of this dissertation, "facilitator" references anyone who has been trained in use of the Delphi and who is running a meeting.

There are three steps to diffusing the Delphi Technique when facilitators want to steer a group in a specific direction.

Continue reading "The Delphi Method: What You Should Know. part 3" »

Posted by Doug at 10:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

FROM A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC TO A PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

With the advent of education reform, the ensuing turmoil among the citizenry, and the grassroots research that has been sparked therefrom, a consistent pattern with respect to public participation and input has emerged, giving cause for alarm among people who cherish the form of government established by our founding fathers. Recent events, both inside and outside education have brought the emerging picture into focus.

.

In the not too distant past. the hiring of a consultant by the City of Spokane to the tune of $47.000 to facilitate the direction of city government brought a hue and furor from the populace at large. Eerily, this scenario held great similarity to what has bean happening in education reform. The final link came in the form of an editorial comment made by Chris Peck regarding the "Pizza papers."  The editorial talks about how groups of disenfranchised citizens were brought together to enter into a discussion of what they felt (as opposed to know) needed to be changed at the local level .The outcome of the compilation of those discussions influenced the writing of the city/county charter.

.

Sounds innocuous enough. But let s examine this a little closer, Let's walk through the scenario that occurs in these facilitated meetings.

Continue reading "The Delphi Method: What You Should Know. Part 2" »

Posted by Doug at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Delphi Technique
How to achieve a workable consensus within time limits

The Delphi Technique was originally conceived as a way to obtain the opinion of experts without necessarily bringing them together face to face.

.

In Educating for the New World Order by Bev Eakman, the reader finds reference upon reference for the need to preserve the illusion that there is "Lay, or community, participation in the decision-making process), while in fact lay citizens are being squeezed out."

.

A specialized use of this technique was developed for teachers, the "Alinsky-Method" (ibid, p. 123). The setting or group is, however, immaterial the point is that people in groups tend to share a certain knowledge base and display certain identifiable characteristics (known as group dynamics).

.

This allows for a special application of a basic technique. The "change agent" or "facilitator" goes through the motions of acting as an organizer, getting each person in the target group to elicit expression of their concerns about a program, project, or policy in question.

.

The facilitator listens attentively, forms "task forces," "urges everyone to make lists," and so on. While she is doing this, the facilitator learns something about each member of the target group. He/she identifies the "leaders," the "loud mouths," as well as those who frequently turn sides during the argument -the "weak or non-committal."

.

Continue reading "The Delphi Method: What You Should Know. Part1" »

Posted by Doug at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

I know it's early, but the "silly times" are about to start! 

If you don't vote, don't complain about what the elected officials do (or not do) on your behalf.  And if you are going to vote, please just don't vote the party line.....KNOW why you are voting for someone or something. from BOTH sides of the debate. 

No matter what you do, vote or not, will affect how things go here in Gilford - vote responsbily.  In that vein, we echo what the Gilford Steamer reported (paid subscription required):

UpStream, a Lakes Region United Way initiative, is sponsoring a community forum with New Hampshire Senatorial Districts 2 and 4 candidates on Tuesday, Aug. 29, beginning at noon at the downstairs hall of the Congregational Church, Veteran's Square in Laconia.

The invitation to participate in this forum has been extended to Senator Carl Johnson of Meredith, Senator Robert Boyce of Alton Bay, Candidate Kathleen Sgambati of Tilton and Candidate James Fitzgerald of Laconia.

PLEASE get informed - we urge you to go (now, if I can only get back from San Diego in time.....) 

In the near future, we will be assembling "stats" on all of the candidates, letting you know the straight skinny on what their platforms are, as well as our take on their platforms (you would expect any less?  And yes, conservatives will be placed under the microscope as much if not more than the Liberals).

And be sure, we are looking for discussions here in the 'Grok from you folks!

Posted by Skip at 09:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is the first of GilfordGrok's educational / commentary series on the politicians that may have an impact on Gilford, either at the Federal, State, or local level.  This post should be indicative of how we will go about doing so, first in as in an even handed process as possible (the engineer in me), and then a commentary portion (and the conservative in me).  While not word for word, much of what I will post will be directly from their websites.  I may paraphrase from time to time (politicians tend to be on the wordy side), but I will try to get the gist of their platform in the spirit of how they present themselves without as much bias as I can.

The skewering will happen after the break, for both candidates on Left and Right side of the aisle.

First up! 

Carol Shea-Porter is a Democrat wishing to win the Democratic primary to take on the present incumbent, Jeb Bradley (R) in the first Congressional District.  Her rivals in the primary include Jim Craig and Gary Dodd.  She has never held an elected office before. 

From her website, her take on her issues: 

Civil Liberties

• Now we have a president and many legislators who believe that those laws don't apply to them
• They are spying on American citizens through electronic home invasion, snooping on phones and computers.
• They search the bank, phone, library and medical records of not just terrorists, but law abiding Americans.
• They frighten the librarian who has to turn over the records if he or she receives a National Security Letter, and they threaten to prosecute if the librarian ever tells anyone
• We must eavesdrop on terrorists and search their homes to find out what evil they are planning, but America should not abandon its laws governing invasive searches and surveillance.
  
• America must be vigilant, but not bullying, alert, but not fearful, careful, but not liberty-trampling.
  

Education

• Against school vouchers - public schools are sufficient
• Get rid of the No Child Left Behind law.  Not in favor of standardized testing
• Wants the Federal government to get out of education and leave it to the states
• Schools are underfunded and teachers underpaid in many districts
• Wants the low or no interest loans so that students do not have a debt that cripples them after graduation.

Healthcare

• Medicare for all
• The Federal Government would have an obligation to the American taxpayers to spend their money wisely and create an efficient, fiscally responsible program

Privacy 

• I believe we have a right to be free from electronic surveillance unless there is strong suspicion and a warrant.
• I believe that we have a right to make our own medical decisions.
• Women have a right to make their own reproductive decisions
  
• Families have a right to make end of life decisions.
• We must insist that our representatives in Congress represent us and protect us,
• I pledge to be a forceful defender of an individual's right to privacy.
  

National Security

• Terrorists will only be defeated if there is goodwill and cooperation among various governments, so that all nations will aid in hunting them down.
• There are certainly a few rogue nations, but by invading Iraq, we have lost credibility with many other nations who could be helpful.

Conservative ex-military leaders such as Congressman John Murtha and General William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency, believe this

• We only create cynicism by saying that even though there were no WMD's, we stayed there to create a democracy in Iraq. 
• The United States must physically leave, abandon our "lone wolf" approach, and work with other nations to stabilize Iraq.
• We need to concentrate now on protecting our own country from terrorists and natural disasters, while we repair our international relationships.
  

Economy

• Wants to rollback the tax cuts 
• Blames the tax cuts for making it harder on the middle class - high insurance, medical costs, soaring housing prices, and reductions in services 
• Wants the minimum wage raised.
• Wants to raise taxes on corporations ("pay your fair share")
  
• We all must contribute according to our ability, so we can protect our nation.
• Will work to guarantee Social Security's long-term health by voting to put a Social Security tax on someone's full income, not just the first $90,000. 
• Will fight this fiscal irresponsibility and work towards a budget that is financially sound and morally fair to all.

Continue reading "Congressional District 1 - Democrat - Carol Shea-Porter" »

Posted by Skip at 08:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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)

Conservation Commission Chairman John Goodhue went before the Gilford Board of Selectmen seeking to get the town involved with the Smith Cove milfoil controversy.

.

"If we want to get rid of this milfoil, I would like to see the town get involved with this," said Goodhue.

.

Goodhue is seeking money from the town to help pay for the hand-eradication of milfoil in Smith Cove.

Posted by Doug at 01:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

The following is the contact information for Gilford's State House Representatives as of 7/23/06.  It is our goal that we will also be putting together information concerning each Rep's voting records as shown by various special interest groups.

Reps are listed by Town, then alphabetically.

Name                  Party District   City        Home Phone        E-Mail                       
                   
Boyce, Laurie J        R   05  Alton        603-875-7371    lauriejboyce@yahoo.net

Peter Bolster           R   05  Alton        Pending

Jeffrey St. Cyr         R   05  Alton        Pending

Elaine Swinford        R   05  Barnstead Pending

Pilliod, James P        R   05  Belmont    603-524-3047    jimp3047@metrocast.net

Johnson, Bill            D    05  Gilford     Pending

Millham, Alida I         R   05  Gilford      603-524-1278    amillham@metrocast.net

Posted by Skip at 05:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Executive Councilor Ray Burton took his campaign for re-election to the streets Friday afternoon when he toured Laconia and Belmont in his orange campaign bus.
 
If re-elected, this would be Burton's 15th term on the New Hampshire Executive Council and his ninth on the Grafton County Board of Commissioners.

"I like to feel I give the district a good combing," said Burton, who hands out combs and campaign literature at each of his stops.

The Executive Council of the State of New Hampshire- more commonly known as the Governor's Council has the authority and responsibility, together with the Governor, over the administration of the affairs of the State as defined in the New Hampshire Constitution, the New Hampshire statutes, and the advisory opinions of the New Hampshire Supreme Court and the Attorney General.

.

Each of the five Executive Councilors represents one fifth of the population or approximately 247,000 citizens. Councilors are elected every two years, concurrently with the Governor. The Councilors participate in the active management of the business of the state. They receive assistance from the Commissioner of the Department of Administrative Services and the Attorney General who review requests involving state funds since no expenditure can be legally authorized without the availability of adequate funds.

A longtime campaign worker for Executive Councilor Ray Burton is a convicted sex offender who was arrested again in Concord this week for contact with teenage boys.

Burton, a Republican from Bath, said he knew about Mark Seidensticker's past offense while he used him for campaign work for more than a decade. Last year, law enforcement officials forbade Seidensticker to have unsupervised contact with minors. Burton said he exercised strict personal supervision over Seidensticker during campaign events.

Posted by Doug at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Kinney O'Rourke, co-owner of the Black Cat Café in Laconia, is a lifelong Democrat. But after he learned Jim Fitzgerald would challenge Sen. Robert Boyce in a Republican primary, O'Rourke changed his status so he could vote for Fitzgerald.

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