GilfordGrok

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)

To the Editor, GilfordGrok.com,

Gilford needs to cut taxes and cap salaries! It’s no wonder why our taxes are out of control. The recent September 22, Daily Sun article says it all. 23 of 39 comparable positions are in the top four out of 32 similar towns. My research of several comparable schools in the area shows that we have the highest pay scale. This is climbing higher with some of the highest pay raises, and among the best health care plans, in the latest three year contract. Even after the previous three year 8% annual increase. The actions of the school board in June is appalling. To extend the Superintendents, high priced, five year contract. This , after we voted against even having one in 1998. Didn’t we leave the old SAU to save money? Now we have created our own over paid bureaucracy. The decades long rhetoric about staying competitive is a farce. All towns use when bargaining for higher pay. Gilford used it even while already being at the top. We are now the "Bench Mark". As when I went to Gilford quite some years ago, many teachers complain to the students about their low pay. It was as disgraceful then as it is now. One senior class teacher recently offered extra credit to his 18 year old students to vote for the new contract.

.

  Go to www.greatschools.net under "research and compare" for other information the school board probably doesn’t want taxpayers to see. Our middle and high school has the lowest student to full time equivalent (teacher) FTE in the area. Combine this with being the highest paid, and Gilford's teachers are probably the best compensated teachers and administrators in the state. Yet the test scores don’t come close to reflecting this. Of coarse the $uperintendent always has a smooth excuse for this. Is this good for our children to see the highest position in the system questioning the validity of the test that are given nation wide? Laconia recently eliminated several administrative positions. Gilford added a whole new middle school administration along with curriculum staff. With all of these additional top pay year round positions, one has to wonder about the necessity of them. It is generally the same number of students and teachers handled by two thirds of the current administration. Lets not overlook all the other unnecessarily added position. Why do we need a third nurse for the same number of students, still in only two buildings? Or did a top administrators family member need a position? Multi-tasking shouldn’t just be for us poor souls in the "private sector"!

.

  This attributes to why Gilford spends $30 + million a year, while other comparable sized towns spend $15-20 million. Throwing money at this doesn’t result in higher test scores, or better employees. We give merit raises to town employees, not for exceptional performance, but just for being on the payroll. Then we have a teacher who repeatedly assaults a 14 year old student in the school and in the school parking lot undetected, or was it just unreported? Do you really believe All the other, top paid professional, teachers were unaware of this predator? And we trust, and pay, these people to protect our children? Or is this a case of not wanting to "blow the whistle" on a fellow union employee? Lets not forget this teacher is the son of the aforementioned mentioned top administrator. These are two perfect examples of why many companies in the "private sector", prohibit employing relatives. As in the church scandal, the safety of our children is being compromised for the sake of not wanting to be overlooked for promotions and, or, bad publicity.

.
Jim Cookman
Overwhelmed Gilford Taxpayer

Posted by Doug at 07:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | 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)

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)

simple charge- determine the most cost effective way to address the space needs of the police department, with an addition to town hall given priority as the primary solution.

"everything is on the table" with regard to the use of the current space at town hall, including moving the offices of the School District- which occupy space on the lower floor, which is accessed from the rear of the building- out.

(1) Move the SAU office out of the Town Hall building. (2) Move the Planning Department and all related persons to the vacated SAU office. The existing customer friendly entrance configuration is ideal for the form of business transactions that office handles. (3) Expand the Town Clerk / Tax Collector’s section into areas vacated by the planners. (4) Study exactly what records and evidence must be kept and perhaps classify into different levels, thereby creating a realistic storage/retrieval system. (5) Construct a multi-story addition right behind the existing sally port.  (A “sally port” is a garage area where a police cruiser with a criminal can drive directly and securely into the building.) The bottom of the new addition would be the new sally port. The existing sally port can be renovated to create more efficient booking area. (6) Close off part of the existing lobby for “secure” waiting area. (7) Explore storage options. (8) Maximize efficient use of all existing areas. 

.
The work could be done in phases through two budget years, minimizing impact on the taxpayers. By attaching a multi-story addition directly to the rear area of the present police station, work could be performed with little disruption to the daily department activities. Openings between new and existing areas would be created during the very last stages of the project.

Posted by Doug at 01:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

While I cannot prove on my own that this is fact, it does seem that local building developments are attracting great numbers of senior citizens to our town.  Seniors make great neighbors BUT----Seniors want/need many services and demand tax reductions.  It also seems that many of the Seniors moving into our area are savvy to the ways of protecting their assets.  More and more are putting their homes in trusts etc.  And the average life expectancy is higher than ever (not that we want to wish a speedy demise to the Seniors of Gilford but we must recognize that the tax breaks and resource demands go long. 

Now here's the problem as I see it.........how can we accommodate these new drains on our local resources?  Granted these Seniors don't have kids in school but they also are finding clever ways to avoid contributing a full tax to the community.  Many of us pay taxes to Gilford who do not have children in school any longer.  

So:

• What is the actual number of Seniors moving into our community? 
• How will we be able to support the financial burdens on the town if a large portion of the community is paying little or no tax? 
• Should we be trying to limit the number of sr developments coming into the area?  
• And, if someone can afford to buy a new home at $300,000 or more why would we feel the need to give them a tax break?  

We better get a hold on this before its too late!   Oh wait, that's not the Gilford way!   We didn't have a viable master plan and look at all the fun developers and lawyers are having at our expense.  What are the chances we'll get moving on this now that they're Heeeeere!  

  - Gilford Annie

Posted by Gilford Annie at 09:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)