GilfordGrok

..

A petition with 65 signatures has been delivered to the Selectmen's office, effectively stopping their plan for a sweetheart deal with the non-profit Village Knolls group-- at least until the voters have their say at a special Town Meeting.

Here is the language of the petition:

As provided in RSA 41:14-a, and pursuant to RSA 39:3, we the undersigned registered voters of the Town of Gilford request the Board of Selectmen call a special Town Meeting to vote on “the proposed sale” of Town-owned land on 43 Potter Hill Road. We believe that the land must be sold as quickly as possible, without any special conditions favoring specific organizations, to a qualified buyer that submits the highest sealed bid offer.

The opposition consists of two camps: Those who don't wish to promote more tax-free or tax exempt subsets of citizens here in Gilford-- folks that won't feel the full impact of spending decisions made on voting day; and those that believe the village is already crowded enough in the area occupied by the parcel in question, and are concerned about the heavy impact of another multi-unit development.

Now we wait for the Selectmen to schedule the meeting. Waiting until the next annual meeting is NOT an option, by the way...

Posted by Doug at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To all the letter writers that have missed the point on the petition to stop the sale of the Potter Hill Road property:

It's NOT about being against the seniors!

Heck, how many live in my neighborhood?

It's about a town facilitating a group of people that will live property tax free within a system of government funded by those same taxes-- and that's NOT FAIR!!!!!

Don't forget, for every citizen granted this special right, the rest of us have to take up the slack.

And here's the other problem: These people that don't pay property taxes like the rest of us will still get the right to vote on spending matters before the town. As I said here on this blog a while back, this seems to be a way for Gilford's big spenders to do an end-run around SB2. Why would people that don't pay taxes ever feel the need to say NO?

Enough is enough.

Are we to the point now here in Gilford that, if we follow the recent logic put forth by one of our Selectmen, we consider family homes somehow bad, and group-type communal homes GOOD? I don't think so. If I want that, I'll move to Red China or the Former Soviet Union.

Additionally, I don't feel in any way "obligated" to help people create systems by which certain classes of Gilford residents will benefit at the expense of others.

The only way I could ever accept more of these developments here in our town is if those that live in them are NOT allowed to vote on town and school matters. And since that can't happen, then the next best thing is to simply prevent them from creating any more tax havens.

In this case, where the town owns the land, it seems as though it can be stopped. Please join me in signing Terry's petition.

NO TAXPAYER-FUNDED TAX-FREE LIVING IN GILFORD. NO WAY!!!!

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

I noticed this in yesterday Laconia Daily Sun (pg 11, emphasis of the text is mine):

Social service agencies to be told not to count on Gilford funding in 2009

GILFORD — In response to questions posed by social agency advocates whose requests for funding were rejected by the Gilford town meeting in March, the Board of Selectmen instructed acting town administrator Deborah Shackett to advise them that they should submit requests as they have in the past.

However, members of the board agreed that it was unlikely that they would recommend a 2009 appropriation for an agency whose request was denied in 2008.

The primary reason of doing the Warrants on the NGOs this year, if one listened to the BudComm deliberations, was that we were hoping to have put this whole issue to bed.  The feeling of the majority of the BudComm was that if any NGO was voted down for funding, that was it.  Done.  Fini.  

For those that did get a thumbs up from the voters, we might not like it, but we wouldn't try to remove them as in years past.  We WANTED to know what the public thought - and now we do.

While the board said it would look more favorably upon requests for agencies that were funded in 2008, such funding was not guaranteed. The three-member board stressed that the agencies should come to the town prepared  to make a strong case for their requests to both the selectmen and the Budget Committee.

Now, I'm not sure if the following this was stated by the Selectboard in their meeting or is the opinion of the reporter, Kinney O'Rourke:

If either the selectmen or the budget committee vote not to recommend an outside agency request, the organization should be prepared to petition for a 2009 town meeting warrant article.

If the former, fine - they are fulfilling their role of providing fully transparent government, letting townfolk know of the options .  If not, this is intermixing news with opinion / advocacy - doesn't that belong on the Op Ed page (or in a blog!)?

The law says anyone can bring a petition warrant forward.  If they do so for a charity that was voted down, I can assure you that THIS BudComm member will not be mildly amused. 

Posted by Skip at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

All concerned residents of Gilford should attend the Selectman's meeting on April 30, 2008 in the Town Hall at 6:00 PM. The meeting is in regards to the Town owned property on

Should such a travesty be allowed, the residents of these communities should NOT be allowed to vote on the school ballot if they have no interest in supporting our children. Even though I'm sure they'll be driven to the polls to vote on every spending increase that the rest of us working stiffs will have to pay for while they enjoy their life of luxury.

Posted by Terry S. at 03:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Well, it certainly seems that the outside agencies / non-profits / prof. services / professional charities are certainly being active on the local scene as the kvetching as tax fund spigots all over are being closed.  They just don't seem to be getting the message that in many cases, that the general public is NOT stupid or ignorant about their mission.  Rather, they would just prefer, in most cases, that their tax money not be spent on them.

Abbreviation - town support is NOT the same as tax money.  Yet, many still think that access to tax money is the only yardstick to be used to judged the level of support.

Well, even the erudite George Will weighs in on this - in his latest column, he quotes from the book of one of our earliest guests on Meet The New Press - Dr. Arthur Brooks of Syracuse.

The money quote (pun intended): 

While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist . . . substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."

As a conservative, I stick to the traditional view of charity - by an individual for individuals (or group of such people) as an active choice of will.  It is an action that takes thought. It is a personal sacrifice that is willingly made to help my fellow beings (here or abroad)

Payment of property taxes is an obligation - not an act of charity. From my property taxes, I expect concrete actions put in motion via regulaed / approved methodology with measurable results.

Thus, there seems to be a wide chasm over my protestations of using my tax money for someone else's charities vs their belief that forced collective payments is their right to have government posses the right to do so. 

And George enumerates some of these:

Continue reading "Outside Agencies" »

Posted by Skip at 12:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

BUMPED and UPDATED:

The Blogging Councilor has picked up on this nonsense and has a post here - go read it! 

This initiative is being put forth by a group that wants to institute broad-based taxes on all of us. The latest attack has been by putting warrant articles in about 80 town elections calling for the removal of the pledge.

Their thought is that if the pledge doesn’t exist then politicians wouldn’t be seen as reneging on their word when the tax is instituted.

The main argument for bringing this new tax to life here is that it will greatly reduce our property taxes. This argument requires a belief that the politicians in Concord that don’t pay their bills to the counties, towns and cities now will properly fund local government and schools. I wonder what imaginary world that these people live in.

And Greg has it exactly right - one cannot just look at one tax, all taxes have to be taken into effect.

The comment over there also caught my eye. From Jane:

Basically these articles would like you reject the Pledge by discouraging candidates from taking it or not voting for candidates who have taken it so they can leave the dialog open for more discussion about ‘fairer’ taxes. This is a non-binding resolution. But it is the first step in the demonization of the Pledge and those who take it, under the premise that they are preventing the legislature from considering more ‘fair’ ways of taxation.

You cannot legislate away the ‘free speech’ of candidates. Candidates will continue to take the pledge as offered by CNHT as seen here: (and hopefully at our annual picnic on July 5t, 2008)

http://www.cnht.org/images/pledge.jpg

Even Governor Lynch signed our Pledge.

 The Pledge is our NH Advantage.

Granite State Fair Tax Coalition (which is not for fair taxes, just taxes

Article 27: To see if the Town will vote to approve the following resolution to be forwarded to our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor:

Resolved: We the citizens of Gilford, NH believe in a New Hampshire that is just and fair.  The property tax has become unjust and unfair. State leaders who take a pledge for no new taxes perpetuate higher and higher property taxes. We call on our State Representatives, our State Senator and our Governor to reject the “Pledge”, have an open discussion covering all options, and adopt a revenue system that lowers property taxes. (Submitted by Petition)

Now, I am of the camp that property tax monies should be spent solely on local government activities but I will address that again in another post. 

Several counter arguments to this were offered:

• Lower spending results in lower taxes
• Adding additional tax revenue streams will not result in lower property taxes in the long run (the saddest example of this is NJ).
• We lose local control of how taxes are gathered and spent.

Continue reading "Town Warrant Article 27 - Two 'Grok Thumbs Down" »

Posted by Skip at 10:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (5)

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)

Two 'Grok Thumbs Down 

This is like the earlier Non-Governmental Organizations (or, if you prefer, "Outside Agencies") - social organizations that wish to do their fundraising via soliciting tax money from governmental bodies instead of broad appeals to the general public. 

Article 26:  To see if the taxpayers of the Town of Gilford will vote to raise and appropriate the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to support the activities and facilities of the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association, a 501(c)(3) tax exempt charitable organization that operates a variety of sailing programs for residents of the Lakes Region.  These programs include: a Youth Sailing School; a Community Sailing Program for adults; and a soon to be established Adaptive Sailing Program for physically and mentally challenged children and adults, including wounded veterans returning from combat operations.  Programs are open to all Lakes Region residents regardless of their ability to pay.  (Submitted by Petition) (Not Recommended by the Board of Selectmen, Not recommended by the Budget Committee).

Principle: Charities should fundraise from citizens, not their governments. 

Our recommendation to our fellow citizens is to vote "No".

Our recommendation to the Lake Winnipesaukee Sailing Association is to reach out to citizens instead  of the Towns; solicit charitable donations and not tax money.

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

Well, we certainly were warned - and when people say something, I tend to believe them:

McLaughlin said before he and his wife came to Gilford they lived in Massachusetts on a 13-acre plot of land. When they left, they hadn't put the land into a conservation plan, and now it is developed, he said.

"I have learned a lesson and I am not going to let the same thing happen here. Not on my watch, if I can help it," said McLaughlin (Citizen, November 18, 2006)

Essentially, he has said that he will not stop putting parcels of land off the development "table" that otherwise be used to provide housing in Gilford off of the development.  Yet, in his hunger to keep Gilford "rural" and 

Flush from his push at the last election to have the Bean property kept from development with taxpayer money, he is now using taxpayer money to once again to "save" the Person's Farm.  While it was said that it would be done privately, when one gets (from adding up the numbers in his Sun Letter to the Editor (Sun, 12/14, pg 5)

                $352,500   Federal Natural Resouces Conservation Service, Farm and
                                 Ranchland Protection
                  $44,250   NH LCHIP
                 $115,000   Gilford Conservation Commission  

                $511,750     Not a small amount of tax money

                $300,000     Persons "gift"                   

                $811,750
                  $31,410      Pledges from 25 families (only 20 from Gilford)

                 $843,160

Yet, I was under the assumption that this was being done privately?  My definition of private means "no public money".  $511,750 is a whole lot of non-private money - more than half raised is actually taxpayer money.

I also take a wee bit of umbrage to parts of his letter:

Continue reading "More taxes for land - when is it enough?" »

Posted by Skip at 02:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 08:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Posted by Terry S. at 09:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

GilfordGrok is our local blog - we generally try to keep posts specific to Gilford and the surrounding areas...after all, there's generally lots to comment upon!  However, this caught my eye from Instapundit observing what is going on in Massachusetts.

At InstaPundit:

DEATH SPIRAL: Property tax bills soar as services fall. This is the inevitable result of a bloated and inefficient public sector. I doubt that Deval Patrick will do anything much to de-bloat it, though.

UPDATE: Heh.

The first link goes to Boston.com, the online presence of The Boston Globe (the power of linked Internet!):

Residential property taxes rose an average of $161 in cities and towns across the state in the past fiscal year, as home assessments hit historic highs despite declining market values.

[snip]

Since 2000, property taxes have shot up nearly 50 percent, from $2,679, far outpacing gains in wages, which climbed 30 percent statewide over the same period, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the past seven years, the average annual property tax hikes for homeowners have ranged from about $150 to nearly $215.

You know, the above would be a great research project for here in Gilford.  Given that I have seen math projects around the idea of "social justice" themes, I wonder if any of Gilford's math classes would conduct a research project around the idea of "taxpayer contributions"?

Continuing on to InstaPundit's HEH (almost a trademark symbol of "this is funny!") was this at Charlie Foxtrot:

Continue reading "Gotta love Instapundit" »

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

I commented earlier upon the Northfield Education Committee's stance on the Winnisquam School Board's lack of following the deadlines necessary, resulting in the special election. Well, the School Board got spanked - they lost  by a vote of 229 to  155 (with only 384 out of 7,000 - 5.5% turnout - really a need for SB2!). Once again, voters listened and agreed with the Budget Committee / NEC and voted against the teacher contract..

What was interesting were some of the comments that were reported in the Citizen and the Sun (not online):

"No one in the private sector is getting these kinds of raises," said Gretchen Wilder, a Northfield resident who has been a vocal opponent of both the contract and the special meeting called to ratify it.

I love context, and was glad to see that someone provided some:

Speaking against the district's position that the raises were needed to keep pace with other area school districts and presenting his own research about teacher turnover rates and pay scales, Northfield's Kevin Waldron said many more of Winnisquam's teachers have bachelor's degrees as opposed to master's degrees and the pay scales would necessarily be lower.

"We're actually in the middle, which is not a real bad place to be," said Waldron, saying that a starting teacher's pay of $29,000 in the district ranks 83rd of the 160 school districts in New Hampshire.

and this:

"More money does not make them better employees," said Northfield's Greg Hill, who said he disagreed with nearly everything Tryon had to say. "Better education and training make them better."

"I don't mind paying for good results," he said, citing his research that showed 32 percent of Winnisquam graduates went on to four-year colleges while 85 percent of Bow's graduates did so. "We should increase pay scales in March and give raises for master's degrees only."

I liked this contrast:

Cost: Officials estimated it would cost $377, 584 in fiscal year 2008

School Board Prep: We knew there was money left over [from fiscal year 2007] and $200,000 was spent on nonbudgeted items," said Gorrell.  "They knew they were coming before the voters but they chose to spend the $200,000 anyway and not return it to the voters," said Gorrell to applause.

The Math: the WRSB would have only had a $177,000 gap to make up if they had shown some fiscal frugality. Of COURSE that hurt their cause - it showed that the WRSB had a disregard for taxpayer's hard earned money.

Now, for the flip side:

"We're very disappointed for our dedicated teachers," said School Board Chair David Foster who was on the negotiating committee and is also a Northfield resident.

Well, you folks messed up, big time.  Trying to engender sympathy for others due to your bad performance didn't play well before and probably isn't playing well now.  Besides, most understand that those in charge have to accept responsibility for the results, or lack thereof, of their actions.  Trying to powderpuff shows a lack of foresight; trying to pin it on the "mean" voters is disingenuous.

And more from the WRSB

What the people have done is an attempt to chastise the nine school board members, but they punished 150 teachers," said Ellen Barry, who heads the Winnisquam Regional Teacher's Association.

She said she thought the voters were "justifiably upset and angry" that the issue did not come before them last March but declined to discuss any details of the negotiations or why the deadline was not met.

Well, when one is in charge, your actions and decisions have consequences.  You are responsible for overseeing the educational activities under your wing.  Thus, you are responsible for what happened to the teachers, not the voters. 

Look folks, admit you screwed up, things didn't go your way - own up to it, apologize, and then try again.  Sour grapes doesn't look good on anyone. 

Oh yeah, THE card was played:

As to the immediate future, Barry said the students will receive the education they deserve but she can't guarantee any of the extras.

Yup, the card.  After all, it's not about the children after all. 

"I've already spent my money at Staples [on student supplies] " she said. "It's on my credit card. Now I just have to find a way to pay for it."

Join the club, ma'am.  I've bought expensive computer equipment in advance of when I should have...it teaches you not to count your chickens before they hatch.  A sideswipe once again at the voters doesn't help your efforts. 

Posted by Skip at 07:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Today's Laconia Daily Sun had an extensive article:

Lovett proposes spending cap for Meredith 

Miller Lovett, who with Colette Worsman cast a dissenting vote when the selectmen adopted the 2007 budget, is proposing guidelines to control governmental spending.

[snip]

...In particular, he recommends "calculating the tax dollar increases from new construction and using that for new costs due to population growth" and ensuring that "the maximum average tax bill for propertyies with no new improvements will not exceed a cost of living index." 

It seems that one of the Selectmen over in Meredith is proposing an "informal" cap on spending.  I applaud Miller Lovett and his efforts to protect taxpayers.  The only reason why I put it as "informal" as Meredith, as here is Gilford, there is no City Charter to formalize a tax / spending cap.

However, the idea that Selectmen can do the same thing holds a lot of merit. Limiting the growth in spending by the Town and School District by a specific inflation rate bumped up only by taxes supplied by new building (residential or commercial) - it seems reasonable.  To no one's surprise, I am a proponent of the idea "Why should government spending effectively be unlimited where ordinary families are limited?" 

I wonder if our Selectmen and School Board would seriously consider such a voluntary spending limit.  

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

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

.

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

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

Posted by Doug at 07:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Editor, GilfordGrok.com,

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

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

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

.
Doug Plummer Gilford

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

October 18, 2006
To the editor, GilfordGrok:

.

Bureaucrats Promote Spending

.

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

.

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

Terry Stewart
Gilford, NH

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

Posted by Doug at 05:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

.

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

.

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

.

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

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

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

Posted by Doug at 08:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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

In the latest article of what is a very well done series, the New York Times (yes, the NYT - it’s amazing what happens when you don’t inject opinion into news stories) examines the detrimental effect the cost of government pensions and health care on a New York town of Rockport.

Cities across New York State are only now starting to grapple with the so-called legacy costs of pensions and retiree health care benefits, and the situation in Lockport — with its rising property taxes and strained budget — is emblematic of what other cities may face in the future.

.

Lockport’s pension costs for public workers have increased more than tenfold since 2000, to $1.6 million projected for this year, from $111,083. During the same period, the cost of providing medical coverage to city workers and retirees has risen 71 percent. Together, pension and health care costs have grown to 14.5 percent of the city’s budget last year, up from 7.6 percent in 2000.

.

The Lockport city government has regularly made concessions in past contract talks with its five unions, agreeing at various points to reduce the number of years that police officers and firefighters must work before they can retire, to 20 years instead of 25, and then granting them additional benefits for extra years of work. Such enhancements, which typically do not show up on city balance sheets for years, are often used to wrest shorter-term savings from unions.

.

And as they are in the private sector, health care costs are soaring. City workers in Lockport do not pay monthly health insurance premiums, except for some new hires in their first two years of service, something that is increasingly rare in the private sector.

Like politicians (of both parties) in other states and in Congress, past officials in Rockport (corrected by GG "Lockwood") were too cowardly to face the simple fact that providing “free” health care and retirement for their workers was financially unsustainable.  If this was a private company (which employed many Rockport residents and is another example of what happens when you make unrealistic promises) it would have been sued by its shareholders and out of business by now. But so long as the politicians can put future generations of taxpayers on the hook for the cost, when they are long out of office, they will keep doing so.

.

And who is stuck paying the price. The taxpayers of course.  And the current mayor, who deserves credit for at least trying to take steps to stop the bleeding...

Posted by Doug at 07:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The loss of the Laconia Police Department's canine, Yogi, in July meant more responsibility was placed on the only canine left in Belknap County. That canine is Agbar, the Gilford Police Department's three-year-old Czech-born German Shepherd.

and Agbar are now first on the response list in towns where they used to be back-up and were called out twice in one week recently, one call being in Laconia.

Both the Laconia and Gilford canine units were called in the past to respond to several area towns' calls including Belmont, Alton, Tilton, Northfield, Loudon and Meredith. The first responder called depended upon the distance and location of the call. When asked about the added workload, Parent [K9 officer] said the pair have been managing just fine and are on call all the time. Parent's shifts re scheduled at night when most of the calls are made. "We are designed to be here when stuff happens," Parent said.

 

While Parent's calls will extend to other departments in Belknap County, particularly Laconia, the Gilford Police Department does not seek compensation for these service calls. Parent did note that the additional calls provide Agbar with valuable on-duty experience. Responding to assist other departments are considered good-faith efforts to help build relations between departments. "It's just law enforcement helping law enforcement," added Parent.

Posted by Doug at 05:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Wesley Woods is currently working on a payment-in-lieu-of-taxes agreement with the town.

Posted by Doug at 06:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Washington, D.C. - The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today released its 2005 Congressional Ratings.  For 17 years, CCAGW has examined roll-call votes to separate the taxpayer advocates in Congress from those who favor wasteful programs and pork-barrel spending. 

The 2005 Congressional Ratings cover the voting year 2005, or the first session of the 109th Congress.  CCAGW rated 34 key votes in the House and 24 key votes in the Senate.  Votes included a budget reconciliation bill that will save a $39.7 billion over five years in mandatory programs, a tax reconciliation bill that would protect the tax cuts passed in 2001 and 2003, reforms in class action lawsuits, the Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and affirming the Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC) recommendations. 

The entire House had an average of 45 percent a six point increase over 2004.   House Republicans averaged 73 percent; House Democrats averaged 13 percent.  The entire Senate had an average of 46 percent also a six point increase over 2004.  Senate Republicans averaged 68 percent; Senate Democrats averaged 18 percent. 

There were two Taxpayer Super Heroes with a score of 100 percent:  Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) in the Senate and Ed Royce (R-Calif.) in the House.  Taxpayer Heroes are members who scored between 80 and 99 percent.  The total number of Heroes and Super Heroes in the House dropped from 59 in 2004 to 52 in 2005.  The number of Heroes and Super Heroes in the Senate remained the same at 10. 

.

“Talk is cheap,” CCAGW President Tom Schatz said.  “The voting record is the best way to measure a member’s commitment to fiscal discipline.  Unlike the Taxpayer Super Heroes and Heroes, too many members of Congress demonstrate little regard for the harmfull effects of a large and cumbersome federal government.”

CCAGW’s website features the complete 2005 Congressional Ratings, including vote descriptions, scorecards for the House and Senate, personalized scorecards for each member of Congress, historical comparisons, and averages by chamber, party, and state delegation.  Visit www.cagw.org 

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste is the lobbying arm of Citizens Against Government Waste, the nation’s largest nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government.

Continue reading "CCAGW 2005 Congressional Ratings" »

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

Continue reading "City & Town. Voters & Tax Caps." »

Posted by Skip at 07:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) |