GilfordGrok

One of the first things that this blog site did was reporting the Budget Committee (Salary study sub-committee) results of of comparing all of the towns that shared the same population demographics as Gilford for the positions shared in common. 

From information supplied by the Town (under Right To Know requests):

 This table shows that the minimum and maximum pay range for the Town Administrator has not changed from 2006 to 2007.  It also shows that Mr. Juris recieved the full amount possible, 3.75% increase under the new Merit Pay system.

Note: from the previous salary study conducted by the Budget Committee subcommittee, where the data is approximately from 2005, we can see that the Min/Max salary range has been increased:

by 14% 

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

From Dictionary.com:

Noun: something that obstructs or hinders progress...An obstacle is something,
material or nonmaterial, that stands in the way of literal or figurative progress

The BudComm was trying to move the Town forward by making it easier for taxpayers to review the major costs in Gilford - the Town and SAU employee salaries (and associated benefit costs).  It is the belief of the members that while the information is public, it requires a citizen to go down to the appropriate offices and file Right To Know requests. To many (if not most), this is a frightening proposition.   Given what School Board member Paul Blandford said in the local paper, many may believe (true or not) that there might be ramifications for requesting what is rightfully theirs.

However, we know that the Selectmen turned down the request with only Gus Benevides voting it make it easier and less stressful for taxpayers to get that information. In this week's Steamer, I learned a couple more details: :

Benavides said that the town has to balance the needs of the employees and the needs of the taxpayers. Benavides was concerned that it would have a negative impact on the taxpayers but went on to say that Gilford is "of the people, by the people, and the people have a right to know."

As for town employees, it is expected that everything they do will be made public, Benavides said.

Connie Grant and Alice Boucher voted not to do so.  Connie was quoted as saying:

Grant said she was concerned it was just too much at one time for her to be comfortable with.

"You sit in the (selectmen) office and all the town reports are there," said Grant. "This is a big step and I don't want to be the three that change history."

Gee, an impediment to make progress on behalf of the taxpayers...an unwillingness to push forward?

Yet, what was it that Connie called the BudComm?  Oh yeah...

Continue reading "Obstacle - well, I guess it depends on the issue and the stance, doesn't it" »

Posted by Skip at 09:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Right To Know requests have now been filed with both the Town and the SAU for the information in this post.  While this is no way mitigates the discussion that went on during last week's BudComm meeting, that data will be made available to the public for those that are too shy (fill in other adjectives here) to do so on their own.

Frankly, I may not stop there - there is the County and State levels too......

Let's see, what else is on my plate again?....... 

Posted by Skip at 05:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This past week's BudComm meeting had a lively discussion as to whether or not the Town and School Board employee information (salary and burden information should be printed in the Town Report).

It seemed clear that there were two camps, and who were in which camp (listen to the entire meeting notes here).  Dale is in the camp that believes it is not.

Opinion
It seems fairly clear that this would not be received well by town or school employees, and I think it's easy to understand why. Which of us would be happy if our incomes were posted for all to see?

Whether or my salary is posted or not is a strawman argument.  That said, to be perfectly honest, I could care less if someone did - it doesn't matter to me, as it is what it is.  I have come to that stage of life where salary is not the end-all-be-all that it used to be at the beginning of my career.  It's not that it isn't important, but I learned a long time ago that letting one's career define you is a losing proposition for all other facets of your life (if you allow yourself to have a life outside of "career" - something that for many years, I did not).

Anyways, the fault with this argument is that I am not a public employee, and neither is Dale.  We made the choice to be in the private sector - thus our income numbers are "private" (at least theoretically).  It is a different case for public employees - that data IS public.

True, taxpayers are technically the employers, and have every right to have this data. But let's be clear about what we're talking about.

Continue reading "Employee data - Debate" »

Posted by Skip at 01:19 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The following is the salary listing for the SAU as of the date received (1/07).  There are approx. 260 employees in the SAU - the rest of the positions are listed after the jump.  All are listed in terms of highest to lowest salary - thus, the Total Cost may differ for the rankings.  Please remember that Total Cost is all other costs borne by the taxpayers for a given position (medical/dental insurance, retirement pay, taxes, et al).

In context, the median income for 4 person family unit in Gilford is about $48K. 

Continue reading "SAU Salary Listing" »

Posted by Skip at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

PLEASE NOTE!

Oops! 

It seems that I have a few errors in my tables that describe the towns that were studied.  FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department spotted a couple of inconsistencies (Population Ranges, Valuation Per Capita chart, the Total Budgets by Town charts) that I need to review.  As needed, I will correct the data and signify the tables that have been changed with an UPDATE notification

So far, either I just fat fingered typing something in, or referenced the wrong spreadsheet cells for either the To Average or To Median numbers as to where Gilford stands - each table's corrections will show the old data and the updated results.

Speaking of which - so far, no updates have changed the relative standings of where Gilford stands with respect to the other towns.  If it does, I will report it back here. 

Hat Tip to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department  who alerted me to this.

-Skip 

Posted by Skip at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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

This Post Lists the Towns by Population Densities. 

Please note that Gilford ranks 19th and is 39.5% below the average population density and is 16.8% lower than the Median.

Posted by Skip at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Post lists the populations of the towns against which Gilford is being compared.

Update 1: Hat Tip: Thank you to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department who alerted me to some problems in the tables!

He noticed that the narrative and the percentages at the bottom of the chart were incorrect, and he was right.  The old narrative was: 

Please note that Gilford ranks 12th highest overall in terms of population.  It is 5.3% lower in population than the overall average, but 36.3% more than the overall median population.

The new narrative is:

Please note that Gilford ranks 12th highest overall in terms of population.  It is 4.7% Above in population than the overall average and 7.5% above the overall median population.

Posted by Skip at 05:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This Post outlines the amount of Area each town has within its border by Alphabetical order.  Subsequent Posts will re-sort the data by other values. 

Values are given in terms of square miles. 

The Density column is the Population Density -  the amount the Population from the previous Post / Land Area.  These values are computed using the Land value only.

This information is important as it will show both the span of area that must be patrolled by the Police Department and responding to calls by the Fire Department.  Larger areas / higher densities require more resources - the converse is also true.

Posted by Skip at 05:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Skip at 05:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Update 1: Hat Tip: Thank you to FTO Christopher M. Jacques of the Gilford Police Department who alerted me to some problems in the tables!

The percentages that were at the bottom of this chart,

Were still tied to the VALUATION (in an associated table) instead of the PER CAPITA column shown here.  This means a change to

 Thus, Gilford is

Posted by Skip at 05:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)