March 2008 Archives

www.Citizen.com 

March 26th, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: This is a reply to Mr. Tolman's 3/21/2008 letter that questioned my comment about voters feeling "comfortable to express their true feeling" in secret balloting. I have spoken with people that refrain or are reluctant to attend Town Meetings as they are hesitant to openly vote their true feeling because of possible retribution by fellow citizens that see their hand vote or hear their voice vote. That includes business people, parents, etc. I also know people that have attended Town Meetings and stopped voting after a few votes saying, what is the use? Sometimes people feel that way when voice votes seem to be disproportionately louder than the actual number of voters. A vulnerability with the present system is that non registered voters could join in on the voice vote and for that matter the hand vote, but with SB2 that is not an option.

Mr. Tolman made a number of statements and charges in his letter such as "We, as citizens, are not guaranteed or entitled to feeling 'comfortable' in the exercise of our democracy." He apparently finds this to be acceptable in the face of a loud and boisterous opposition and a moderator manning a bully pulpit. It seems to me that Mr. Tolman has no tolerance for true democracy where all votes count and the persons race, creed, loudness of voice or intimidating personality do not matter. Where I do not "have to look one's fellow citizen in the eyes while (voting). "

The answer to his question that " Every major legislative body in our country is held accountable for their individual votes in the public record; would we ask any less of ourselves at the most basic level of self-government?" is a resounding yes! I would ask Mr. Tolman, why do we vote in private for general elections? Why, when we turn in our ballots no one has the right to look it over? I'm not an elected or public official and my right to vote my conscience in private should not be infringed upon by anyone. That is true democracy.

On a more factual note, and for the benefit of the readers, with the SB2 form of government there is a Deliberative Session which is just like the Town Meeting; articles can be debated and amended. The major difference with SB2 is that there is a 30 day waiting period, before voting, that gives voters ample opportunity to read editorials, letters to the editor, talk with others to comprehend any changes made to any articles an yes, even look your fellow citizens in the eye. One then can come to a personal decision on how to vote with a secret ballot.

I believe that debate is a very good thing, but for voting I prefer the ballot box where my vote is between me and my conscience and not between me and my neighbor.

By the way Mr. Tolman, you made one statement that I totally agree with: "SB2, as enacted in our state right now, does not change the fact that we, as voters, have a responsibility to get out and attend an annual meeting where we can discuss and debate the articles before our town."

Vote for SB2

Jim Leiterman

Moultonborough

www.laconiadailysun.com

 

April 1st, 2008

 

To the editor, Laconia Daily Sun:

Two letters in Monday’s Sun need attention; two others speak well for themselves. The one I read fi rst, which Mr. Peter Miller wrote and no, I didn’t do a word count, speaks of fellow citizens as having forked tongues, dastardly ploys, making him pay, ramifications, turkey vultures whispering and circling road kill, as well as slurring neighboring towns people with GilfordGrok banners attached to rear ends and carpetbaggers meddling. I mean like WOW, and Mr. Kahn wants a time out. He also suggests that those for SB-2 are ‘small d democrats’ as opposed to what BIG D DEMOCRATS; I am neither, nor a Republican,party affiliation is not attached to an individuals right to cast a vote. Mr. Kahn’s states that SB-2 opponents want only to continue what has been. If that is true, then why are they suggesting a hybrid form of government? Mr. Miller states that we favor home rule and local control. Perhapshe doesn’t understand the meaning of ‘casting a ballot’. Both writers have something in common though, not reading the state statutes. The worst being Mr. Kahn as he states: “. . . or a group of petitioners die or move away by next February, ...” He is carrying forward a statement made in an earlier March 26th Sun article that the N.H. Secretary of States Offi ce advised the validity of signers residency be checked again in February 09 to determine if everyone (who signed the petition) were still living and living and registered in Meredith. This is the only title, chapter and section in the statutes which speak to petitioned articles. In it one will find no time limitations as the validity of signatories of a petitioned articles accepted by one or more selectman. The Town Clerks duties are to verify the validity of residency at that time. Nothing in the RSA speaks to the petition being able to be rejected because one or more persons died (unintentional or otherwise) or whether they left town willingly (or otherwise). Perhaps in some other state, nation, or time, but not in this state at this time, does a citizen of the state need to be afraid of being driven out of town, coarsened or worse for having signed a petition article to be included on a ballot.I held from speaking to this subject earlier, but Mr. Kahn has raised the volume beyond what our dear Mr. Miller has with his diatribe and supercitizen persona. Anyone can go on line to the states website and read it for themselves — 24/7. And by the way, it is not the Secretary of States function to interpret the state statutes, that function resides with the state’s Attorney General. The Attorney General’s office could only e suggest an inference from, the checking of the validity of residency at the polling place before an individual may cast a ballot, as the requirement of checking a second time in February. To that we may all read and be assured doesn’t stand as if it did many, many N. H. citizens in the last 200 plus years would have declined signing a petition for fear of not seeing the following year’s Spring. Here’s the law: New Hampshire Statutes TITLE III: TOWNS, CITIES, VILLAGE DISTRICTS, AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES; CHAPTER 39: TIME FOR HOLDINGTOWN MEETINGS AND WARNING THEREOF: Section 39:3 Articles. —Upon the written application of 25 or more registered voters or 2-percent of the registered voters in town, whichever is less, although in no event shall fewer than 10 registered voters be sufficient, presented to the selectmen or one of them not later than the fifth Tuesday before the day prescribed for an annual meeting, the selectmen shall insert in their warrant for such meeting the petitioned article with only such minor textual changes as may be required. For the purposes of this section, the number of registered voters in a town shall be the number of voters registered prior to the last state general election. The right to have an article inserted in the warrant conferred by this section shall not be invalidated by the provisions of

RSA 32.

G. W. Brooks

Meredith

www.citizen.com

March 31st, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: At Thursday's Selectmen's meeting our Chairperson Karel Crawford chose the start of the meeting to "speak as a private citizen" and belittle and denigrate a local citizen activist group that publicly sought her ouster at the recent elections. She commented against some items published on a public website about letters in the public domain that were, in her view, belittling to another citizen, a citizen that obviously supports the current Select board. Apparently, these insulted citizens chose to get in the ear of the Selectmen who then chose very inappropriately to speak on their behalf and denigrate others.

Karel Crawford has every right to speak as a private citizen, but in the proper forum. When you are the Chair of the Selectmen committee and you are taking the floor at a Selectmen meeting it is not the proper forum and you are being disingenuous. Calling this group and all that support it "intimidating" and "slanderous" are serious charges and makes me wonder what is next, an oath asking "have you now or have you ever been a member of the Moultonborough Citizen's Alliance"? Do you seriously believe some will not see this as an opportunity for you to strike back at your opposition? How is it that one citizen (that agrees and supports you) can obviously get your ear while those that don't are put down and dismissed?

Shame on you Karel Crawford for traveling the low road and showing the public just how unfair and intolerant you can be. I expect our leadership to be above this and represent all of us, even those we don't agree with or didn't get your vote. You should publicly apologize for this outburst in the interest of true democracy. A sad day indeed in Moultonborough.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

BY MICHAEL KITCH

www./laconiadailysun.com

Laconia Sun March 26^th, 2008

 

MEREDITH — In a preemptive strike apparently designed to forestall a possible restructuring of town government, advocates of SB-2 this week submittedmpetitions to again put the issue to voters in both the town and school district inMarch 2009. On Monday, Richard Juve delivered a petition for the 2009 town ballot with 32 signatories and another for the school district ballot with 42 signatories to Town Clerk Kerry Parker.

 

The move may legally stop any attempt by local officials to develop a new, hybrid form of government for at least a year. Juve made his move less than two weeks after SB-2 came within a whisker of success at the polls, falling only 3-percent shy of the three-fi fths supermajority required for adoption in both the town and school elections. In balloting for the town, the majority in favor of SB-2 was 57.5-percent, with 616 in favor and 456 against. In the school district election, 57.1-percent of Meredith voters — 599 to 450 — endorsed SB-2 only to be outvoted by their counterparts in Center Harbor and Sandwich. Yesterday, Juve said that last Friday an anonymouscaller warned him that town officials and the selectmen were planning to initiate the process of adopting a charter, which could preempt a renewed effort to adopt SB-2. “He told me,” Juve said, “’you’d better hustle because if they get it together, you’re dead.” “It was like the gun went off for the final lap,” he continued, “and the other guys were right on our heels. A desperate sprint.” Juve said that he and his wife Ruth collected signatures over the weekend and delivered the petitions on Monday.

 

In response to the strong showing of SB-2 the Board of Selectmen has begun to ponder exploring the optional forms of town government authorized by the so-called “home rule” statute (RSA 49-B), several of which, including the most appealing, incorporate the official ballot (SB-2). The process of chartering a new form of government requires voting to convene a charter commission, electing a charter commission, drafting a charter and voting on a charter itself and would stretch over two municipal election cycles. But, by submitting his petition for SB 2, Juve may have stopped that process in its tracks. The law governingthe adoption of SB-2 (RSA 40:14) reads reads in part “in the event that an alternative method for the adoption of offi cial ballot voting exists under the laws of this state, then once the requirements are met for inclusion of the question on the warrant for annual meeting of whether to adopt this subdivision, neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt offi cial ballot voting through such alternative method until a final vote is taken on the warrant article.” In other words, once a petition for SB-2 qualifi es for the warrant, its fate must be decided before the question of convening a charter commission can be put to the voters.

 

At the same time, Juve may have beat the selectmen to the punch. RSA 40:14 also provides that “if procedures have been initiated to adopt official ballot voting under an alternative law of this state, then neither the governing body nor the legislative body shall commence action to adopt this subdivision until such alternative procedures are exhausted.”Parker said that she has been advised by the New Hampshire Secretary of State to verify the signatures as soon as possible and again in February, before the article is placed on the ballot. “We need to make sure everyone who signed is still living and living and registered in Meredith,” she said, adding that she never expected to receive a petitioned article a full year before town meeting.

 

    **Please Note:  Items to be placed on the weekly Selectmen’s Meeting Agenda must be submitted no later than Tuesday, noon.
    
    Office of Selectmen
    P. O. Box 139 / 6 Holland Street
    Moultonborough, NH 03254
    603-476-2347
    
    AGENDA

    Selectmen’s Meeting                                                       March 27, 2008

    I.         CALL TO ORDER:     4:30 PM
                4:35    Non-Public Session, Employment Interviews

    II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
    III.       REVIEW / APPROVAL MINUTES:     March 20, 2008
    IV.       NEW RESIDENTS:

    V.        ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
                1.         Chair/Vice Chair
                2.         Board Committee Appointments

    VI.       PUBLIC MEETING:
                7:05     John Marino, MBLU #254-058, 10 Watson Shore Road
                7:15     Stephen Cote, MBLU #146-004-000-029-000, 201 Hanson Mills Road
                8:00     Non-Public Session, Real or Personal Property
    
    VII.      NEW BUSINESS:
                1.         Launch Request, Forge Pond Bassmasters, Lee’s Mills, August 9 & 10, 2008
                2.         Temporary Use Permits, 528 Whittier Highway, 7/5-7/19/08 & 8/2-8/30/08
                3.         Joanne F. Coppinger - LRPC Transportation Advisory Committee
                4.         DES Groundwater Management Permit Renewal Application

    VIII.    OLD BUSINESS:
                1.         Donna Kuethe, Recreation Director
                2.         Budget Advisory Committee, Draft Advertisement

    IX.       OTHER BUSINESS:
                1.         Legislative Update
                2.         Planning Board Update
                3.         Administration Update
                4.         Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes, March 19, 2008

    X.        PENDING:
                1.         Residency Ordinance for Registered Sexual Offenders, April 15, 2008
                2.         Policy for Closing Town Offices Emergency/Inclement Weather, May 15, 2008
                3.         Senior Needs Committee

    XI.       CORRESPONDENCE:
                1.         Jean Schmidt, March 20, 2008
                2.         Moultonborough Fire/Rescue Dept. – Annual Firefighters’ Appreciation Night, 4/26/08
                3.         Moultonboro/Sandwich Senior Meals – Volunteer Luncheon, 4/8/08
                4.         Paul Punturieri, March 25, 2008

    XII.      ADJOURNMENT:
    

 

OFFICE OF SELECTMEN
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH  03254
 
Selectmen’s Meeting                                                                                                 March 20 , 2008
 DRAFT
MINUTES
 
Present:            Selectmen:  Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest (attended Non-Public Session), James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator, Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
 
I.         CALL TO ORDER:  Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.
 
II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
 
III.       REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES:  Joel Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of March 13, 2008 as written.  Jim Seconded.  The Motion carried Unanimously.
 
IV.       NEW RESIDENTS:  Nicholas T. French, Heidi L. Burke, Michael J. St. Onge.
 
V.        ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
1.         Chair/Vice Chair
2.         Board Committee Appointments
 
Karel stated that Betsey would not be at the meeting

March 25, 2008

A recount of the town's March 11th vote on moving to a Senate Bill 2 (SB2) style of balloting has confirmed that the proposal failed by a narrow margin.  1317 people voted on Article 2 (SB2).  742 voted YES.  575 voted NO.  56.35% voted YES for SB2.  46.65% voted NO. A 60% vote is needed for article to pass. 

http://www.moultonboroughsfuture.com/minutes.html

http://www.moultonborough.org/survey.pdf

www.citizen.com                                       March 22, 2008

Editor, TheCitizen: I am writing in response to Kim Dubuque's letter to the editor on March 20. She stated that in all the years that she has been attending the town meetings in Moultonboro, the use of petitions for paper ballots were 'used on very rare occasions'. This year's meeting had 8 petitions for secret ballots that 'were signed by 5 to 10 people. This turned what is usually a timely process into a marathon.' She went further to state that this turned her civic duty into 'a lengthy and arduous affair for no apparent reason.'

Well Kim, I'm sorry that you found the right of the people to vote in secrecy such a burden. The law allows for secret ballots when 5 registered voters present at the town meeting sign a petition and request it for any article item. That is precisely what happened on Saturday. It was not the intent of those that signed the petitions (I signed two of them) to 'disrupt what is usually a timely and smoothly flowing process' or as some would say a vocal rubber stamp. What the requests for secret ballot clearly indicate, is that not all people prefer their vote to be known by any or everyone else. Some people are easily intimidated by others and may feel swayed or pressured into voting in a particular way.

This year's agenda had some very contentious issues at hand, as was evidenced by the heated discussion that occurred. Point in fact: there was a very vocal group that petitioned article 9 (funding for an architectural and engineering study for the Community Center) with 300 signatures. The reality is that less than 200 signatures were valid and only 198 voted for this article during town meeting. Hmmm... I would remind the writer that SB2 while not achieving a super majority, was a clear majority winner (56%) so obviously many people want a secret ballot. There was a recent editorial in the Citizen that stated this very fact. It's not the tax that is too much, it's the spending!!! This is one of the reasons that article 9 was voted down.

We need to focus on our needs not our wants. And if that means that we take extra time to vote in a secret ballot, then so be it! Some people have been ridiculed by some of our selectmen for not having the 'courage' to speak out at the town meetings. I don't think that is fair or proper to say such things. If I am going to be publicly ridiculed then I wouldn't want to speak out. In fact, I wouldn't want to go to the meeting. Then guess what? My vote wouldn't count. But by utilizing the right to petition for a secret ballot, those who have felt intimidated or ridiculed would have their vote counted. This year, every vote counted.

I can assure you that many people, including myself, did in fact do their research and made a 'sound decision'. I can also assure you that you have not heard the end of SB2!

Linda Punturieri

Moultonboro

www.citizen.com                                     March 21, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: Now that we have passed the Moultonborough '08 elections and town meeting, I would like to congratulate the incumbents for their apparent victory and the three write-in candidates for running a stunning effort in three short weeks. To have captured nearly a third of the votes for a write-in campaign makes a statement. The selectmen write-in candidates each garnered 60% of the incumbent Ed Charest and 50% of Chairman Karel Crawford.

But the important number coming from this year's voting was the 56% (town) and 58% (school) of the voters that are asking for the fair voting process of SB2 in Moultonborough. This contest has proven that more than half of the residents of our otherwise quiet little hamlet want to have a fair process of voting. If there was a failure in the campaign, it was that we proponents of SB2 did not fully educate the electorate to (1) understand the simplicity of this voting initiative and (2) dispel the fear-mongering misinformation spewed forth by those that may be giving a fraction of their control back to the electorate by allowing them to vote.

I want to thank all those voters that supported the write-in efforts as well as all those that came out and voted for SB2. Without your efforts and votes we would not be where we are today. You have spoken and clearly, you would like to be able to vote on town issues. By your willingness to learn about SB2 and make the effort to come out to vote, you have shown people like this humble scribe that it is all worthwhile. I salute you and ask that you do the same next year and bring along a couple of friends that offer like-minded thinking.

Selectman Ed Charest made the comment at a selectmen's meeting a few weeks back that the proponents of SB2 "had tried last year ('07) and failed" (40% of the needed 60%) and so we "were wasting the time and expense of the town by trying it all over again". Well, Ed, now that more than half of the town has spoken, we owe it to the majority to try it in '09. It will be on the ballot again.

The large turnout at the town meeting this year, being on a Saturday for the first time, shows this observer that people want to vote if it is available to them. Unfortunately, even though Saturday offers more access, it still leaves those that are out of town or home bound as disenfranchised voters. When the moderator asked for a show of hands of those first timers to town meeting, there were several that went up. This is further indication of the need for SB2.

With a careful study of the numbers from the voting booth (and those allowed absentee ballots) on March 11, all the officials in the elective positions in town should take note that they have had a well-placed "shot across their bow", or at the very least a strong message. And I will dare say that SB2 will be part of the landscape soon. Get used to it and start looking at the reality of it. We should all look at the advantages that it offers and work with the local papers to preprint a synopsis of the ballot with yes/no check boxes as an aid to educate the voters from the deliberative session results.

My guess is that the selectmen, moderator, and the other SB2 opponents in Moultonborough will very quickly be trying to muddy the waters with an effort to establish "another form of government" with a "Charter Commission", as Meredith has already begun researching. This is reinventing the wheel. The voters didn't say we want a charter commission… we want SB2. It is simple; it allows all to vote; it is complete and it is proven. More than half of the population of New Hampshire lives with SB2, while Charter Commissions are few and far between.

Rick Heath

Moultonborough

www.citizen.com                     March 21, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: In Meredith approximately 4% of the voters control $33 million of the town's finances.

In attendance at Meredith's Annual Town Meeting to vote for the 9,000-foot addition to the fire station were 385 voters who voted 285 for and 73 against. 7.5% of the voters showed up to vote for the $2.5m fire station addition. That was at the start of the meeting at 7 p.m. and at 8 p.m. a vote was called for after an hour-long color screen presentation on the need for the expenditure and the future need for a full-time fire department. Get ready for some financial contingency planning on this one. Another hour was consumed by a screen presentation on purchasing Page Pond. No color screen presentation with slides explaining the abbreviated, one-page $13m budget was made by the Selectmen at 11 p.m. If we had 200 voters left at 11:30 p.m. to vote on the $13m budget, we were lucky. Two ladies sitting next to me got up and walked out prior to the long diatribe by the police and public employees. One lady said to me, "I don't want to get into this conflict." And it turned into a dispute-ridden atmosphere.

Barely 4.2% of the voters approved the $13m Town Budget, which was about the percentage of voters that approved the $20m school budget. Only 250 voters determined the Town's Budget. There are 4,754 registered voters.

So we have approximately 4% of the voters controlling the town's finances of $33m.

www.meredithnhnews.com
by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com
March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — The Moultonboro community/ senior center will have to wait a few years, as Moultonboro residents voted down Article 9, $375,000 in architectural and engineering fees in a vote of 198-256. In the very next vote, however, $100,000 in capital reserve funds for the center was approved by a narrow vote of 148 to 137.

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: Previously the Recreational Strategic Planning Team presented a list, claimed to be 300 signatures, attached to the petition to the Moultonborough Selectmen, requesting a $375,000 warrant article (article 9) for architectural, engineering fees, etc. for the possible construction of a "Community/Senior Center" on the Lions Property.

As reported by Hollis Austin, in his 3/13/2008 letter to the editor, the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance checked and found there were only 264 signatures and when you delete five that signed twice, numerous unregistered, illegible or missing signatures, etc., the total was under 200.

Now let's see what happened at the Town Meeting on March 15th. An amendment to lower the dollar amount, of article 9, was defeated by a hand vote of 137 for and 148 against. Then the original article 9 was put up for secret ballot and it was defeated by a vote of 198 for but 256 against. The illusionary 300 signers were nowhere to be found as only 198 voted for article 9.

When the secret ballot was employed, apparently many voters felt comfortable to express their true feeling and voted article 9 down. With SB2 all articles including expenditure articles are voted in the ballot booth and voters are guided by their personal opinion and their conscience.

These same so called 300 signers influenced some of the selectmen to change their vote to 4 to 1 to recommend article 9. It was an illusion and that is something for us all to guard against.

Now I call on the citizenry to refer to and follow the suggestions of the Municipal Needs Committee report entitled Municipal Needs Committee 12 Point Recommendations on RSPT Proposal which is available on the MCA website www.moultonborocitizensalliance.org and it's in category titled Municipal Needs Committee. It's a logical 12 point plan to get answers to questions and proceed to work with other departments to achieve citizen's needs.

Jim Leiterman

Moultonborough

I am writing to thank the Citizen Alliance for all the information and posts regarding the recent elections in Moultonborough. I would also like to congratulate the Alliance for requesting for a recount of the SB2 questions in the form of a manual count. The hand count process is the most reliable way to tabulate ballot votes.

Electronic counting is subject to error.

The vote counting machines in New Hampshire have already been the focus of citizen efforts to point out the shortcomings of these machines. Please click on the YouTube video link below. It is quite shocking to see how a vote tabulating machine can dramatically alter election results. After watching the entire five minute video, I am sure you will agree with me that the hand count is the most reliable and trustworthy way to count ballots.

I want to be clear that I believe our local elections are run with the highest degree of professionalism and integrity but even so vote tabulation machines have and can make gross mistakes. I would also like to thank the Town election officials for their efforts in advance.

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=PiiaBqwqkXs&feature=related

 

James R Castleberry

www.citizen.com                                   March 19, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: What an excellent editorial in the Sunday Citizen (It's not the Tax It's the Spending). The last two paragraphs should be required reading for all Selectmen and Town officials throughout New Hampshire: "New Hampshire has to return to its roots. State, county and local governments have to step away from enacting budgets the people cannot afford to fund — budgets that represent 17 percent, 15 percent and even 4 percent increases. Government at all levels must step back from treating every request for taxpayers' dollars as entitlements."

Bravo Citizen editors. That concept was evident to our citizens on Saturday March 15th, 2008. Moultonborough voters rejected spending our tax dollars to fund a very expensive project. The message to the Selectmen was loud and clear: it's the taxes, not the concept. Our elected officials going forward should weigh all spending requests under the greatest of scrutiny. We have the opportunity to further reduce our low tax burden and find alternative creative funding means for projects that, while they would be nice to have, are simply not a necessity. Times are tough for middle and low income families. The cost of gas is rising out of control. Milk is approaching $5.00 a gallon. Just because we have a very low tax burden per capita, doesn't mean we should spend more. After all, property taxes do not consider a person's ability to pay, especially in these uncertain times.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

www.meredithnhnews.com

March 20, 2008 A vote can speak a thousand words, or at least it did in Moultonboro, where voters rejected architectural and engineering fees for a new community/senior center in a vote of 198-256, but approved $100,000 for a capital reserve fund for the center in a vote of 148-137. The message? Moultonboro wants a community/senior center … but not right now.

www.meredithnhnews.com
by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com
March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — A hard road to travel was given a boost as voters approved $392,000 to be combined with a $600,000 donation from bottling company CG Roxane to reconstruct Ossipee Park Road. That doesn't mean the way to the vote was easily reached. Many residents objected to spending that amount when they blamed the company's trucks for damaging the road in the first place.

www.meredithnhnews.com
by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com
March 20, 2008 MOULTONBORO — A well-attended School District Meeting approved the operating budget for the district at $13,566,659. Most warrant articles passed in quick succession as 570 voters reported in on Town Meeting morning, and voters approved the compensation of elected members of the district and approved a contract with an independent auditing firm. A ballot vote on the $13.6 million district budget was approved in a ballot vote of 324-77. Before beginning the ballot vote, though, resident Brooke Amiss questioned the board on the performance of Moultonboro in the "Three 'Rs," especially on the subject of math. Quoting the Moultonboro School District Assessment Report, Amiss asked why a certain percentage of students seemed to do poorly in mathematics, specifically those in Grade Three, 28 percent of whom scored as "partially proficient' in the New England Common Assessment Program test on math.

www.meredithnhnews.com

March 20, 2008 To the Editor: Last Saturday's Moultonboro Town Meeting was a display of democracy at its finest. The participation of more than 500 voting residents was positive and informative. Amendments to articles were put forward, discussed and in the majority of cases ended up as the original article was written. I just can't imagine how that could ever happen in SB-2 deliberative session. I have been going to Town Meetings for over a half a century and can't for the life of me understand why some would like to do away with this form of government that has worked so well for so many years especially in our town and town's of our size and larger. I have been opposed to SB-2 from the start and am even more opposed to it now after witnessing Saturday's session of democracy in its purest form. My congratulations to Mel Borrin for moderating this meeting with dignity and professionalism. Jordan S. Prouty Moultonboro

OFFICE OF SELECTMEN
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH  03254
 
Selectmen’s Meeting                                                                                                 March 13 , 2008
DRAFT
MINUTES 
Present:            Selectmen:  Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator, Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
 
I.                   CALL TO ORDER:  Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.
 
II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
 
III.       REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES:  Joel Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of March 6, 2008 as written.  Jim Seconded.  The Motion carried Unanimously.
 
IV.       NEW RESIDENTS:  Victoria J. Frewin, Allen W. & Joan C. Harding, Stephen R. Betz, Jr., Sarah B. Blackadar, Albert J. Camden, Kaitlin A. Hull, Maria E. McKenna, Elizabeth M. Page, Cristen M. Spinale, Elizabeth M. Spinale, Joseph M. Vosgershian, Miles C. Trevor, Karen P. & Eric D. Gundersen, Robert F. & Mary L. Allen, Paul F. & Martha L. Duffy, Sunipa Kanyanutcharat, Paul C. Devito, Jr.
 
V.        PUBLIC MEETING:
 
            8:00     Non-Public Session (Possible Request Re: Litigation & Personnel)
 
1.         Laurie Whitley congratulated Ed and Karel for being re-elected for another term and thanked them for their continued service to the Town.  Referring to the Municipal Needs Committee Minutes of March 4, 2008 and the supporting material about Warrant Articles 9 & 10, Ms. Whitley asked how this information could have been included in the mailing that arrived in individual’s homes on Friday, March 7th.  She stated that her point is that someone in the MNC is not following the chain of command and released this information to the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance prior to the Selectmen viewing it.  Tom Howard, Chairman of the RSPT, clarified that the actual memo was not mailed, but what was mailed contained the same information.  Ms. Whitley stated that she does not expect the Selectmen to provide answers, but felt that appropriate procedures need to be followed and it was a misuse of information.  Ralph Carrasco, Chairman of the MNC, commented that this is the first he’s heard of this and didn’t know the information had been distributed.  He added that the memo was emailed to the Selectmen on Wednesday at 4:00 pm.  Hope reported that the email was not opened until the next day, Thursday and was included in the Selectmen’s packet even though it was a late submission.  She added that Barbara Rando sent an email on Tuesday, asking for the MNC to be on the Agenda, under Old Business for open issues.  There was no attachment to this email.  Karel responded that the MNC is given its charge by the Selectmen.  Mr. Howard provided a copy of what was sent out by the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance to the Selectmen.  Ms. Whitley stressed that her point is that all committees report to the Selectmen and need to follow the same procedures to make information public.  Hollis Austin asked if the Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance is being accused of something.  Karel replied that the point of this is that information was disclosed before it came to the Selectmen.  Ms. Whitley stated that her concern is that someone in the MNC distributed information prematurely.  Mr. Howard replied to Mr. Austin that the information that was presented to the Selectmen on March 6th was received in people’s homes on March 7th and the heading on the document was Moultonboro Citizen’s Alliance.  Mr. Carrasco, as Chairman, apologized and stated that he would look into this issue.
2.         Freddie Gale presented to the Selectmen her letter of resignation as Chair of the Senior Needs  
  
 

**Please Note:  Items to be placed on the weekly Selectmen’s Meeting Agenda must be submitted no later than Tuesday, noon.
 
Office of Selectmen
P. O. Box 139 / 6 Holland Street
Moultonborough, NH 03254
603-476-2347
 
AGENDA

Selectmen’s Meeting                                                       March 20, 2008

I.         CALL TO ORDER:     7:00 PM
II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III.       REVIEW / APPROVAL MINUTES:     March 13, 2008
IV.       NEW RESIDENTS:

V.        ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING:
            1.         Chair/Vice Chair
            2.         Board Committee Appointments

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: I am delighted to see the defeat of Article #9 ($375,000 to fund and an architectural and engineering study for a Community /Recreation Center) in Moultonboro's Town Meeting on Saturday March 15th. This sends a clear message that it is not a 'small vocal few' that objected to community/recreation/senior center on such a grand scale.

Few oppose a center of some sort. Unfortunately, there are those that would have us believe that there is a demanding and pressing need to build a massive center, one with more ball fields for our little town with a population of 4000, on the scale of one for a major university! It was a huge turnout at the ballot election on Tuesday March 11th with nearly 1300 people coming out to vote. SB2 was defeated by a very small percentage. So small that a recount will be done for both the school and town.

There were 570 people at the town meeting on Saturday, another huge turnout. That is nearly 800 less than were able to make it to vote in the election. What a shame to disenfranchise so many taxpayers. We were able to stay until after Article 9 was voted on, but had to leave. Later, we met a town employee at one of our town facilities who was very interested in how the town meeting was going. Like many other people, this individual had to work that day and could not vote. My mother is 80 years old, but she would not miss her opportunity to vote in the election at the public safety building. She was not able to attend such a lengthy town meeting as she has difficulty walking long distances and didn't want to sit that long. She also has a hearing disability that prevents her from being able to understand all that is being said. It's a shame too, as she was very interested in knowing what went on the very minute we came home. She too was pleased to learn that Article 9 was defeated. She would like a senior center but has no desire whatsoever to be in the same building as teenagers or small children.

If we had SB2 in place those 800 disenfranchised taxpayers would have had a chance to have their vote count on all the issues, including the school budget. Taxation without representation is tyranny!

Linda N. Punturieri

Moultonboro

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: Peter Miller needs a realty check. (Letter to the Ed. 3/13) In most circumstances where "majority rules," there is never the claim of divisiveness. However, he as much as blames the extreme personality conflicts in neighboring Gilford on SB2. Please, Mr. Miller, don't try to reinvent the wheel in the next ten months on something that is unproven. SB2 offers an answer to every issue that you express. I would suggest that you finally recognize some of the problems with the present form of government; the obsolescent town meeting.

Community center seems on fast track in Moultonborough

www.citizen.com

March 13, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

Saturday, March 15, 2008 at the Moultonborough Town Meeting voters will be considering Article 9 ($375,000) and Article 10 ($100,000) for a “community/senior center” recreation complex. Jointly promoted by the Recreation Department and public school personnel, it was originally represented as being years in the future but has since been on the fast track and heavily advertised. A petition presented to the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen on January 31 has become a critical selling point for their demand of immediate funding. There is information you need to know about this petition.

The minutes of that meeting state that the petition totaled 300 voters and the petition’s spokesman stated the purpose was to finalize the plan. The result was the 300 signatures apparently influenced a majority of the Selectmen to reverse their position and instead support the proposal. There are problems.

There never were 300 names, only 264. If all legitimate, this is less than 7% of the registered voters in Moultonborough. According to the latest Voter List for Moultonborough, they were not all legitimate.

You can always leave a comment at any post. Please know, however, that we moderate comments - we review their wording to make sure that they are "family" friendly first before putting them up.

Need to send us mail?  Here is our mailing address:

Moultonboro Citizens Alliance
PO Box 678
Moultonborough, NH  03254

Of course, you can email us:

moultonborocitizensalliance@yahoo.com

(Let us know if you want to get our email alerts)

To The Moultonborough Citizen Alliance:

 

Just wanted to send a quick note out to the Alliance to say that I have received word back from the Attorney General’s office stating that they did not see any violation of the RSA statutes regarding the posting of the rules in advance of the Town meeting. The Moderator is only required to state the rules that he deems appropriate and inform the meeting attendees that the rules can be changed with a majority vote.

The bottom line is that the current Moderator is correct in his assessment of the RSA rules for town meeting situation and I was wrong.

If you would could you please post this letter on your website, I would be most grateful.

 

www.meredithnhnews.com by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com March 13, 2008 MOULTONBORO — As the calendar counts down to Town Meeting and a vote on exploratory costs for a community/senior center, a representative from the Recreation Advisory Committee came to selectmen to gather specific information on the Senior Needs Committee. A good deal of attention has been paid to the recreational needs of seniors, as some residents and selectmen have questioned the amount of space and activities devoted to seniors in Moultonboro during planning for a community/senior center. A vote for architectural and engineering costs to explore the possibility of such a center will be decided upon during Town Meeting this Saturday. Committee member Carla Taylor asked the board about the history of the SNC, who they were, and where the committee now stood. Chair Karel Crawford told her that about six years ago, the committee formed to find a place where seniors could have their own building or meeting room, and tried to develop a vision of the what building would look like, and what activities it would include. As time went on, according to Crawford, the committee went by the wayside with grants "fizzling away." Crawford said she was uncertain of how often they now meet.

www.citizen.com                                              March 12, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: This is in response to Mr. Howard's letter, of March 5th, entitled "Reasons to support new Community Center."

Mr. Howard, said in his opening statement that "accurate information is critical to making good decisions in any circumstances including the exercise to one's right to vote." Mr. Howard is correct. We do need accurate information and we're still waiting for the "accurate information" from the Recreational Strategic Planning Team in order to make that decision on March 15th.

One issue that keeps resurfacing is the wetlands, on the "Lion's Club" property, a problem which is evident and acknowledged by the surrounding abutters. Drainage, runoff and mold can be complicated and expensive issues to

mnews@salmonpress.com

February 14, 2008 To the Editor: At the Moultonboro Selectmen's meeting Jan. 31, a petitioned warrant article was presented, by the Recreational Strategic Planning Committee, for an appropriation of $375,000 for architectural, engineering and other related fees for the phased construction of a $5.5 million dollar community/recreational complex. The petition had nearly 300 signatures. Selectmen Ed Charest said he though the RSPC focused too much on recreation and not enough on the needs of seniors. He stated his decision not to support the petition for $375,000 is based on the present economic factors and the state education funding question. Other uncertainties are the hefty cost increases that loom on our horizon. One is the return of the donor town status to Moultonboro, some estimate the cost at nearly twice the amount of our former assessment. Another is the recent decision by the state retirement system's Board of Trustees to cover a $128 million shortfall in the medical subsidy paid to state retirees by making "employers" i.e. cities and towns, and ultimately taxpayers liable – is an "unfunded mandate."

www.meredithnhnews.com

Printed 1/17/08
__________________________________________________________________________________

From the Meredith News


MOULTONBORO — Though the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously not to recommend the plan for a community center in Moultonboro last week, they do remain open to the option of setting aside money for future construction.

After listening to attending members of the community express their feelings on the community center during the past month, each selectman took a turn voicing their own opinion. The general opinion from the board was that although it was a good idea, it was an idea that could and should wait a few years, considering the potential for economic trouble ahead.

www.citizen.com                          March 7, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

A letter from Suzane Fullerton appeared in the Laconia Citizen on Tuesday March 3rd promoting a yes vote on Article 9 of Moultonborough's 2008 Warrant. This particular article will authorize at least $375,000 to determine (per the Selectmen Minutes) just how much a new Recreation Center, oops I mean Community Recreation Center, oops again, I mean Community/Recreation/Senior Center will actually cost. I do not know the letter writer and I acknowledge her personal point of view and opinion, but I must respond and comment on some issues raised. 1. This proposed project was never primarily a Senior Center. Senior Center was tacked on to make the tax cost more palatable to the aging public. 2. Our current Selectmen voted the proposal down for 2008 due the uncertain economic times we live in and many pressing priorities in our town. 3. Our current Selectmen reversed their position by placing Article 9 on the ballot authorizing $375,000 as they were "so impressed" by the 300 petitioners who requested spending our tax dollars for a project supposedly put on hold. This despite the fact that only 25 of the signatures were actually verified as valid (as required by law). 4. I feel for the writer's situation with her mother-in-law being a winter shut in. She also makes it sound like living here in Moultonborough is akin to living at the North Pole. Nothing here for her? Nonsense. I fail to understand though how a new community center would affect the winter weather as "she was afraid to drive in winter". Did she live next door to the current Lions Club? My mother just moved in with us this past summer (she is 80 years old) and it has been challenging for her to get around. I sure wish I could afford to buy her a place in Florida. She would love it. In fact, I would love to afford to live in Florida for the winter. 5. The writer stated that the RSPT "has not been intimidated" and "continues to move forward in their quest to give the town the simple opportunity to vote". Intimidated by whom? The public that has many questions and worries about rising cost of living here in our little town? Also, there is no warrant article voting on a community center, Article 9 is authorizing a trust fund to determine cost if ( and a big if) the current proposal is to be built. Let me conclude by saying that in writing this response, I do not oppose a community center. The problem which the RSPT and a vocal minority can't seem to grasp is that we want further study to find a solution that we can all truly afford, not just the well off. My final word on this is how about putting that $375,000 into some local transport system so seniors could safely get out and about. Now that would make sense.

Linda N. Punturieri

Moultonborough, NH 03254

Moultonborough Selectman

 

Sent:          Monday, December 10, 2007 10:35 PM
Subject:     community center—

I am unable to attend the meeting on the 13th,but I would like for you to read this email at the meeting,so that all can hear my questions and concerns about the community center.

 

It seems like after attending past meetings, that the recreation dept is pushing for the community center more then any other group.
If what they are looking for is so urgent and in their minds needed-have they heard about ways other recreation departments in towns get money?, such as running fund raisers, instead of asking for tax money? My feelings are that they are being one sided and not thinking about the impact on the total community.

Being part of a sports minded family all my life and having a daughter involved in sports over the last 30 years, who has been coaching high school volleyball for 20 years and my son-in -law for 15 years, who is currently a college coach, I have had several discussions with them concerning their requests for recreation improvements both in the community and school systems.
The point I would like to make on this subject is that what I have found about both of them, is that they always wanted the best for their kids, which I can not fault them, have always had a hit list longer then my arm, of what they would like for improvements to their programs. This is the nature of their positions, which again I cannot, fault.
They have always put the community first and their requests second and I don't think that this is being done by our recreation dept in Moultonborough.

The town that I came from in Ma. had 4000 kids in the school system with 6 gyms-that's an average of about 670 kids per facility.
The town of Moultonborough has around 650 kids in the system -2 gyms-that's an average of 325 kids per facility.
My question is do we need another gym?- my answer would be no. Not at this time.

The additional ball fields I won't agree or disagree with- but would like to say lets first get a true cost and time frame to improving what we have first. I also truly believe that if we put our mind to it, our current fields at the playground can be redone and ready for use in less then 2 years and for the two years make some adjustments to our programs.

 

Lastly, what is being said about a small increase to our taxes may be small to people in the 6 figure category, its a lot different to a senior on a fixed income getting a social security check for 700.00 dollars per month.Lets look after the people that make up a large majority of the year around residents-our seniors.

It is my hope that we put this project on the back burner at this time and move on, and use our energies to improve and work with what this great town,( with little debt}, of Moultonborough has today.

Respectively

 

Joe Quaresima

Town of Moultonborough

6 Holland Street · Post Office Box 139

Moultonborough, N.H.  03254

(603) 476-2347

 

Municipal Needs Committee

2008 Town Warrant Supporting Material

Presented to Selectboard March 6, 2008

 

The Municipal Needs Committee had a work session on March 4^th and the below two Warrant Articles were a matter of concern and discussion:

 

 

 

To assist the Selectboard and members of the community who ask “What is the $475,000 for?” the MNC has prepared the attached one page summary document.  Values are extracted from the RSPT proposal and appendices.  The new RSPT promotional flyer omits critical data needed for decision-making.

 

The warrant requests a specific dollar amount because the RSPT does have a specific concept to buy design plans for and do have specific cost estimates that were the basis for the A&E request. The MNC believes these initial cost estimates should be openly shared with the public.  The MNC used the voluminous RSPT documents to produce a chart  summarizing projected costs over the ten-year bond period.  It identifies areas where costs were omitted demonstrating the burden will be higher than stated. Revenue and fees are not yet  disclosed and excluded here.

 

Given the effort of the MNC to fully grasp the details within the ambitious RSPT proposal, the MNC wanted to share that same level of understanding with the Selectboard, and anticipate you will then share this with the public. 

 

 

2008 Town Warrant Supporting Material

 

 

What is this funding for?  What is the anticipated future project cost?

 

 

          Item Description                          Item Cost                              Comments                                      

Article 9: A&E and Fees Town Warrant 2008	$   375,000	Approx 8% of estimated project cost to refine projected costs, finalize design plus some additional site analyses
RSPT Estimated Bldg Cost	$ 5,024,000	Pg. 35 RSPT proposal
Interest on 10 Yr Bond	$ 1,247,500	$5 M @ 4.25% for 10 Years
Projected Operating Costs over 10 Year Bond (Adds 4 Full-time plus 4 Part-time employees to Recreation Staff)	$ 3,198,300	RSPT proposal appendix  (amount omits annual maintenance costs after year-one warranties expire, and excludes annual inflation factor on salaries, benefits, etc.)
Recreation Fields and Beach Improvements	$ 1,536,000	Pg. 6 RSPT proposal  (amount omits any future maintenance  costs)
Recreation Feasibility Study	$      50,000	Town Meeting 2006 authorization
Initial Lion’s Club purchase	$    495,000	Town Meeting 2007 authorization
Projected Total Recreation Study & Implementation	$11,925,800+	Full RSPT proposal in today’s dollars
Average Annual Cost - 10 Years	$ 1,200,000+	Approx $0.42 per $1000/Assessed Value

 

Omitted Operational Costs

$  ??????+

Adds approx.  5% - 10% annually

 

NOTE:  After the bond is fully paid, operational costs will run about $500,000 annually (or $0.25 per $1000/Assessed Value) before any future expansion.

Future Site Expansion

$ ??????

Pool ($2,286,000 + interest + annual operating costs and 7 more staff members) pulled from  consideration by RSPT Dec ‘07

 

www.citizen.com

March 1, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: The Friends of Recreation in Moultonborough have published a misinformative brochure hawking the benefits of their project "The Community/Senior Center". Readers and fellow citizens of Moultonborough, there is very little accurate or real information in this document.

The truth? The projected tax impacts are purposely misleading and grossly underestimated, designed to sway public opinion. They state the annual operating cost for this center will be $208,000 per year. This despite the fact that the current 2007 budget for the Recreation Department is more than $350,000! In fine print, you will see net operating costs "adjusted for anticipated revenues." That means this project which they would have us pay dearly with our hard earned tax dollars will not be free for the citizens of Moultonborough to use once built. They don't mention how much this will be despite the fact that they seem to have it all laid out in the brochure.

Please voters, think of the seniors and others on fixed and low incomes that would like to see their tax bills go down and not up. Let's find a way to build a Community Center that is affordable.

Lastly, I would like to know who paid for this brochure? I certainly hope it was not paid for with Recreation Department funds.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

www.citizen.com

Editor, The Citizen: I would like to commend Selectman Joel Mudgett for maintaining his previous position, by voting against proceeding with the recommendation of spending of over a third of a million dollars until he has more information. At the Moultonborough Selectmen's meeting on February 14th, the Selectmen voted 4 to 1 to recommend the petitioned/warrant article that was presented, by the Recreational Strategic Planning Team (RSPT) on January 31, for an appropriation of $375,000 for architectural, engineering and other related fees.

Overview of What We Did

• We had a very good work session with the RSPT – they were very cooperative and helpful.  We have sincere respect for the work the RSPT has begun for our community.
  

• To help us with our part of the responsibility set forth in the 2006 Warrant Article 25, we reviewed the work done by the RSPT, listened to and considered input from the community, developed an initial set of questions to further help us, and analyzed RSPT responses.
  

• In response to a few of the questions we received summaries of studies to validate some elements in the proposal.
  

• We held two subsequent work sessions to digest the work product from the joint meeting and finalize our conclusions.

What we Recommend as the Next Step

• Work with RSPT and other committees to lead the development of a set of alternate recommendations that incorporate a step or tiered approach, to be considered and implemented independently of each other, and that lays out a roadmap for satisfying immediate needs, projected needs, and affordable desired enhancements.

• Ensure the recommendations complement the Master Plan Update and input from the community.

To this end, we present our alternate 12-point plan for this ambitious project. In summary, we recommend the Selectboard allocate funding of not-to-exceed $70,000 to begin three initiatives, and kick-off five teams to produce detailed findings and conclusions.


After reviewing the RSPT proposal, discussing the information in more detail with the Team, and listening to commentary from our community, the Municipal Needs Committee is prepared to offer the following dozen items for your consideration.  We acknowledge that the Master Plan, Master Plan Survey, and the Master Plan Update currently underway are key to any action.

The RSPT proposal is comprised of many elements, some with more compelling justification of need than others.  It is our recommendation that the Board move slowly on most, and more expeditiously on a few.  Our review of all the financials for the proposed development of the former Lions Club property plus proposed improvements at the playground and beach areas, including both the capital outlay and ongoing expense (without the pool), reflect a cost to the taxpayer after the first year to be roughly $0.51 per $1,000 of assessed value. 

1. Put “first things first” – i.e., do not recommend a “community center”, “senior center”, or existing facility modification or upgrade until after the Master Plan Update is completed and further discussion within the community is held.   Neither the “need” nor widespread and compelling “want” for a new complex in our town is clearly evident.
2. Create a subcommittee under MNC to gather specific knowledge with regard to alternative scenarios and potential funding sources for a community center that, at first, uses the RSPT proposed center as a baseline.  Produce a plan for community donation (similar to Moultonborough Library, Meredith Community Center, and Wolfeboro “The Nick” efforts) to lessen our taxpayer burden.  
3. Create a subcommittee under MNC to evaluate gymnasium and baseball field needs in town.  This committee will produce compelling statistical evidence and documentation to support need.  School and Recreation will be separate analyses to incorporate the documented trend of 15% reduction in enrollment over the next 5 years.  Then, the two analyses combined for a Town-wide recommendation and solution. 
4. Given the high water table and geotechnical survey results to-date, plus input from abutters, the water issue at the former Lion’s Club property requires further study.  Authorize not-to-exceed $25,000 to monitor the water levels at the test pits for a full year.  The engineering firm to include a statement as to the limitations of the property, and options for use of the property once test pit results are determined. Then, at that time, informed decisions could be made with regard to not only what is possible at the site, but cost-effective.  We are also concerned with run-off. 
5. Include not-to-exceed $25,000 in the 2008 Town Warrant to begin immediate repair of the drainage at the soccer field and baseball fields at Playground Drive.  Create a subcommittee under MNC to work the details, including an alternate location for fall 2008 Soccer.  Seek donations and volunteers to implement the improvements.
6. Include not-to-exceed $20,000 in the 2008 Town Warrant to hire an appropriate engineer to study for remedy the lake-bottom issues at States Landing Beach. 
7. Task the Recreation Advisory Board to take on scheduling issues throughout town (Recreation and Athletics), including a system to plan and monitor all needs and wants.  Include as output a centralized schedule that is posted on a town-wide website.
8. Consider and analyze a relocation of the existing after school drop-in program to the former Lion’s Club facility where space appears to be more than adequate.
9. Hold a series of community winter housekeeping days at the current Community Center to better utilize the space at this Town asset,  i.e., clear out the large room currently littered with stored materials so it can support active use by the community.
10. The Senior Needs Committee, plus others, to prepare a detailed recommendation with regard to specific transportation needs today, plus the next 10 years.  Include participant counts, operating scenarios, and destination information.  Address how this may or may not be coupled with the Carroll County Transit solution recently presented to the Selectboard.  Incorporate into the Master Plan Update currently underway.  If prudent and compelling, address at 2009 Town Meeting.
11. Create a subcommittee under MNC to work the details and cost estimates, including volunteer and donation scenarios, for a park-like setting at Playground Drive as identified in the RSPT proposal.
12. Before granting the go-ahead to the Hockey Dads to begin Ice Rink improvements consider a potential sharing of their building with Building and Grounds Department needs at this location.  MNC can coordinate a complete recommendation.

We will be pleased to discuss these in further detail or answer any questions.

www.citizens.com        printed 3-6-2008

Chance to lower taxes

Editor, The Citizen: The Moultonborough Selectmen have stated that our town budget for this coming year is only 1% higher than last year. Nice work but the town of Sandwich is 6% lower than last year. There is no reason why Moultonborough's taxes couldn't be lowered by sensible spending. If this town stops spending on certain capital expenditures this year, our town tax portion would be lowered by about 18%.

There are four big ticket items. Article 9 is for $375,000 for the Recreation Complex. Article 10 is $100,000 to be put in reserve for this Recreation Complex. Article 12 is 392,000 for this town's portion to rebuild Ossipee Park Road. Article 15 ,which includes $400,000 for an unidentified Municiple Building. Article 15 should be amended at Town Meeting to reduce it by $400,000.

This $1,267,000 deduction in these Capital Expenditures in our Town Budget will reduce our taxes by 18%, not too shabby.

Let the townspeople show up Saturday, March 15, 2008, at 9:00 A.M. to vote on sensible spending. At the same time lower the Town portion of our taxes by 18%. Show up and make your concerns over our out of control spending be heard. Let your voice be heard by your vote .

Al Hume

Moultonborough

New education plan with new winners, losers

www.citizen.com

By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com
 

Article Date: Friday, February 29, 2008
If the proposed legislation on adequate education and disparity aid holds, some area schools, like Laconia, will benefit by as much as $3 million in fiscal year 2010 while others, like Moultonborough, could lose as much as $3 million.

mnews@salmonpress.com

February 14, 2008 To the Editor: I am writing to express my concern about the recent petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a "proposed" community center. The appropriation as I understand it is for $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lions Club property. This represents (per the petition I assume) 8 percent of the construction costs anticipated for this (non) project.

 

Thursday March 27              7:00 PM Board of Selectmen's Meeting  (Town Hall)                                  
 

Election results 3-11-2008
Selectmen
Edward Charest		582
Karel Crawford		707
Gary Torrenssen	write in	353
Al Hume	write in	353
Moderator
Melvin Borrin		840
James Castleberry	write in	336
Zoning Board Member
Herbert Farnham		491
Russel Nolin		796
Robert Stephens		737
Article 2 Town SB2 - did not pass
yes	748	55.99%
no	588	44.01%
total	1336
We needed 54 more votes to get 60%
Articles 3 thru 6 passed
Article 2 School SB2 - did not pass
yes	740	58.13%
no	533	41.87%
total	1273
We needed 24 more votes to get 60%

www.citizen.com

January 7, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: In the course of the RSPT to move forward with their effort of a large, very expensive list of improvements and new construction projects in Moultonborough, there has been a loud outcry from those that are in opposition to this excess. That opposition ranges from the quality of the site for Recreation Center, to the $5 million-plus price tag of that portion of the list, to the $180,000 for two outside toilets, to the "mandate" that was assumed by the vote at the late night Town Meeting last year that represented less than 10 percent of those eligible to vote, and to the misreading of the Master Plan Survey results of 2006.

The Selectmen announced that they would like to hear comments from "both sides of the issue but did not want to hear from the same people with the same points over and over". (I have paraphrased their comments) For the past several weeks they have heard from both sides. Occasionally, discussion was passionate and spirited. However, trying to keep to the facts and not wanting to take the arguments or the tone of the discussion to a personal level, those in opposition to the RSPT Report used information from the report itself, the Master Plan Survey, as well as from minutes of various meetings as their sources. When discussing facts that were contrary to the information that was put forth by the RSPT Report, words such as 'misunderstanding', 'spin', 'respectfully disagree', or 'respectfully correct' were used by those responding to the Selectmen's invitation. Many of the speakers, in fact most all of them, opened by stating that they appreciated the enormous work effort done by the RSPT. The only time I heard the words "lies" or "misinformation" it sadly came from one of the Selectmen and was directed at those in opposition of the Report.

There have also been many shouts of "negativism". Enough already! Reasonable people can disagree. There would not be much point in stating a point of view or one's opinion if we all had to be so "P.C." that we should sit on our hands if what we had to say might disagree with someone else. I for one am disappointed in those folks that are so offended by the open discussion over this huge public spending issue. We are not playing "no score soccer" here. We are spending taxpayer money, and in this case, lots of taxpayer money.

by Sarah Schmidt Staff Reporter	write the author
December 13, 2007 MOULTONBORO — Opinions on both sides of the issue were aired again at the Moultonboro Board of Selectmen, as the board heard more feedback from the community on the proposed recreation center. Arguing in favor of constructing the recreation center, Laurie Whitley, the School Board representative on the Recreation Committee spoke about the potential benefits that a recreation center could have for the Moultonboro schools. Whitley said that both the students and the community have outgrown the old gymnasium at Moultonboro Academy. "The gym was built back when there were four all-boy teams," said Whitley. "Now there are 16 girl and boy teams. It leaves little time for recreation." Though not all sports are played inside the gym, during inclement weather, both soccer and softball try and find space and time in the gym to practice. Whitley said that a larger gym would leave the community the option of getting some gym time as well, allowing pickup games and community teams time to play. On the other end of the spectrum, Moultonboro resident Jean Beadle earned a round of applause from meeting attendants, quoting less-than-stellar economic forecasts for the nation, and stating that she did not want the additional expense of a recreation center being constructed. Beadle also quoted results in the 2006 Moultonboro Master Plan survey, in which 1,355 Moultonboro residents responded to a survey on their hopes for the future of the town. She listed several, but highlighted that in the Moultonboro Master Plan, 86.3 percent of those responding did not want to spend additional money to improve recreation programs.

 http://www.citizen.com/

 

By ERIN PLUMMER eplummercitizen.com eplummer@citizen.com

Article Date: Saturday, December 8, 2007

Opponents of a proposed community center have made their voices heard at a recent meetings, though center organizers say more residents still support the project and recognize the advantages.

The Recreation Strategic Planning Team recently presented a five-year strategy report for the town's recreational needs after a two-year study. The major recommendation was a community and senior center with activity rooms, fields, gym facilities and other amenities aimed at residents of all ages and interests.

The project has an estimated cost of around $5.5 million without a swimming pool, equaling a tax impact of between 15 and 33 cents per $1,000.

The proposed project of around $5.5 million has received public support. The center's opponents, however, have been openly vocal against the project, saying the project is too expensive and would make too much of a tax impact for facilities that are not necessarily needed.

Views were expressed at a public presentation of the strategy committee's report and opponents have come to meetings of the Board of Selectmen to express their staunch opposition.

The selectmen allowed for public comment on the committee report during their last two meetings.

"I think it's ill-conceived, done largely in the dark," said resident Jim Castleberry. "I too would echo that at least I and a good many people are upset the town is considering spending this type of funds. I really think you need to go back to the drawing board."

Resident Jean Beadle cited recent reports indicating that the economy is likely to take a downturn as the price of fuel continues to rise. She also read figures from the recent master plan survey on people's opinions of the recreation department indicating "the majority of people in town are clearly happy with what we have in town, (they) don't think it's broken."

"I hope you would have a zero tolerance for anything that would rase our taxes," Beadle told the selectmen.

This letter was submitted via www.citizen.com.

Printed 2/7/2008

Editor, The Citizen:

I am writing to express my concern about the recent petitioned warrant article to appropriate funds for a "proposed" community center. The appropriation as I understand it is for $375,000 for architectural, engineering, and other related fees for the construction of a community/senior center with fields and other outdoor improvements on the Lion's Club property. This represents ( per the petition I assume) 8% of the construction costs anticipated for this ( non) project.

Maybe I missed something, but I thought that the issue of even having a community center in Moultonborough was not yet decided. Are we now saying that it's okay to spend another $375,000 (on top of the $400,000 or so already spent to purchase the Lions Club property) on a project that doesn't yet exist and hasn't yet been voted on by the public?

I appreciate that 300 people put forth this petition as is their right, I just don't agree with it. I also don't agree with Lisa St. Amand, asking "why that doesn't supersede a small number that says they don't want it when that's what the larger body wants?" That is precisely why many of us in Moultonborough support SB2. 300 people signing a petition might be a majority at a town meeting, but it does not make a majority in terms of a ballot box. This is a perfect example of why SB2 is needed here. Despite the opposition of the Selectmen, the petitioners' still want to spend our money on a project that has not been put forth to the public to vote on up or down. And they want to spend still more money by setting up a capital reserve fund. The public at large has the right to know how and why we ( Moultonborough) came to own the Lions Club property and how it came to be that this is the only site that is being considered for a community center or for that matter, how it was decided we even need a community/senior center.

What I would like to see happen is SB2 implemented in Moultonborough, the Master Plan completed, then further study regarding the needs and scope for a community center which will then dictate the best site for this project. Then a proposed community center project could be voted on by the public in the privacy of a ballot box. That is logical, fair and truly representative of all of Moultonborough and of a democracy.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough



 

This letter was read at the December 27, 2007, Selectmen’s Meeting

 

DEC 2 7 2007

To the Selectmen of The town of Moultonborough,

I would like to commend the Recreation Committee for all their work. They've put in a great deal of time and effort in identifying recreational facilities and programs in Town that need attention and have given us a splendid overview on where we stand. However, I think their enthusiasm has generated a plan that needs much reworking. Let's let the new Master Plan review tell us what's really needed not wanted before going further.

It has been suggested that we needn't worry, there's no problem paying for this entire project because we have all this assessed property to pay for it. I'm sorry, but assessed property doesn't pay taxes, people do. All town taxpayers would have to pay; resident taxpayers who are the more likely ones to use these facilities and non-resident taxpayers who are less likely users.

Some 12 to 15 years ago I was at a Town Meeting when a discussion was being held on a proposal we residents needed or wanted that would be significantly paid for by people who probably had no use for it and would have no recourse to object - our non-resident taxpayers. They just have the questionable pleasure of helping to pay for it.

At that meeting a gentleman, Bob foster, spoke to the issue. Bob served the town well in several capacities and also represented us in the legislature in Concord. I can't remember his exact words but their meaning was; hadn't we already taken enough advantage of the non-resident taxpayers, let's give these people a break. These people being taxed without representation. Here, I thought is a man with a conscience. We would probably not have the one town school system/SAU we have today with it's huge budget without this unique taxing situation.

As Bob said, let's give them a break - and me too.

 

Robert Damarell

 

 

 

 

2008 SESSION

08-2852

10/09

SENATE BILL 491

COMMITTEE: Ways and Means

ANALYSIS

This bill prohibits the appraisal of a property for property tax purposes from using the value of the view.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.

Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]

Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.

08-2852

10/09

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Eight

Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:

1 Appraisal Of Taxable Property; Full and True Value; View Excluded. Amend RSA 75:1 to read as follows:

75:1 How Appraised. The selectmen shall appraise open space land pursuant to RSA 79-A:5, open space land with conservation restrictions pursuant to RSA 79-B:3, land with discretionary easements pursuant to RSA 79-C:7, residences on commercial or industrial zoned land pursuant to RSA 75:11, earth and excavations pursuant to RSA 72-B, and all other taxable property at its market value. Market value means the property’s full and true value as the same would be appraised in payment of a just debt due from a solvent debtor, provided, however that full and true value shall not consider any value of a scenic view or other view external to a property. The selectmen shall receive and consider all evidence that may be submitted to them relative to the value of property, the value of which cannot be determined by personal examination.

2 Effective Date. This act shall take effect April 1, 2008.

             

Subject:	FW: Complaint of violation of Election law RSA 40:4
Date:	Mon, 10 Mar 2008 15:46:36 -0400

 

I have filed a complaint with the Attorney General’s office today regarding the “rules” or rather lack of them for governance at Town Meeting. The moderator has since communicated with me, under advice of consul, that he is stopping communications with me. The issues I raise seem to me at least not of a personal nature but rather going directly to the issue of accountability of government so in my opinion still need to be raised. The messenger has been shot so I am appealing for other voices and citizens to look into the concerns I raise. Please see a copy of my complaint attached.

 

James R Castleberry

jcastleberry@verizon.net

   

              

 

 http://www.moultonborough.org/2008%20TOWN%20WARRANT.pdf

March 8, 2008

 

SB2 and the transformation back to majority rule.

 

The New England Town meeting was born from the Calvinistic notion of ecclesiology. The Wikipedia definition of ecclesiology is that it comes from the Greek ἐκκλησία (ekklesia), which entered Latin as ecclesia, which originally simply meant a gathering or a meeting. The Mayflower Compact established the ecclesia of New England under a Majoritarianism form of government, which defined that a majority  of the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in society, and has the right to make decisions that affect the society as a whole. This concept is known as majority rule.

 

The early Congregational Church also gave us the notion of Town. The New England town is the essential unit of local government here in New Hampshire and in all the New England States. The institution of Town does not have a direct counterpart in most other places in the USA. Most towns in Massachusetts, NH and Maine were chartered by the Colonial Assemblies based on having a Congregational Meeting House and an appointment of a minister by the Congregational Church. Most of these Town Charters instituted the same sort of Majoritarianism government style of the Mayflower Compact.

It is especially significant to point out that there was no idea of separation of Church and State and quite to the contrary the meeting and Town government were adjuncts of the Calvin styled Congregational Church.

 

The current Town Government and Town Meeting are a direct historical hand down of our Congregational ancestry here in New England that pre-dates the American Revolution and the notions of constitutional democracy. The rules are now more inclusionary in that we now accept women and men that are not members of the Congregational Church, but for the most part the meetings are conducted in largely the same manner as they have been for 300 years.

Along with the inherited desired effects of “majority rule” also came the “dark-side” of the ecclesia and the power of the majority. Alexander Tocqueville, an early French commenter on the American experience put it best in his commentaries on the American Democracy:

“In America the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them. Not that he is in danger of an auto-da-f‚, but he is exposed to continued obloquy and persecution. His political career is closed forever, since he has offended the only authority that is able to open it. Every sort of compensation, even that of celebrity, is refused to him. Before making public his opinions he thought he had sympathizers; now it seems to him that he has none any more since he has revealed himself to everyone; then those who blame him criticize loudly and those who think as he does keep quiet and move away without courage. He yields at length, overcome by the daily effort which he has to make, and subsides into silence, as if he felt remorse for having spoken the truth.”

 

Simply put expressing your opinion can subject you to persecution, humiliation, and exile.

OFFICE OF SELECTMEN
6 HOLLAND STREET
PO BOX 139
MOULTONBOROUGH, NH  03254
 
Selectmen’s Meeting                                                                                                 March 6, 2008
DRAFT
MINUTES 
Present:            Selectmen:  Karel A. Crawford, Edward J. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator, Hope K. Kokas, Office Secretary.
 
I.          CALL TO ORDER:  Karel called the meeting to Order at 7:00 P.M.
 
II.        PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
 
III.       REVIEW/APPROVE MINUTES:  Betsey Made the Motion to approve the Minutes of February 28 , 2008 as written.  Ed Seconded.  The Motion carried Unanimously.
 
IV.       NEW RESIDENTS:  None.
 
V.        PUBLIC MEETING:
 
1.         Recreational Advisory Board:  Carla Taylor, representing the Recreational Advisory Board, presented the Selectmen with the RAB’s monthly report.  She stated that they have just had a working session and received public input.  Ms. Taylor stated that they have had some success with setting up protocol for the meetings, but continue to struggle with communicating back to the public.  The RAB is requesting information from the Selectmen concerning the Senior Needs Committee.  They would like to know if the Selectmen authorized the Committee, its purpose, the mission statement and if they are independent of the Recreation Department.  Karel recalled that the Senior Needs Committee was formed at least six years ago and were charged to identify the needs and to locate a building/place to conduct activities.  Initially the Committee was awarded a grant and they developed a vision of a building for the Town’s seniors to conduct activities in.  She speculated that once the grant money ran out not much occurred after that.  Karel added that she is unaware how often the Committee meets as

www.meredithnhnews.com                                  March 6, 2008

To the Editor: Three high quality people have answered the challenge! Moultonboro Moderator Mel Borrin presented a challenge of sorts, while at the same time condemning those that vote "behind the voting booth curtain," that those who truly care about their town should run for office. We have heard similar words of admonishment from the two incumbent selectmen. Their take is (or has been since the filing dead line has closed for town offices) that "we don't need SB2…you elect us and we represent you" is how the chairman puts it, I believe. Well when it comes to the flip flop that they pulled off this month with respect to the Recreation Center issue, this observer, for one, cannot rely on them to "represent me" anymore.

www.citizen.com                                    March 6, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: I would like to echo the words of a very expressive letter I recently read from Mr. Anthony Alibrio of Moultonborough. This effort for SB2 is not just in Moultonborough. Obviously those of us in Moultonborough want this voting initiative for our own hamlet among the hills. However, as the question of caring for one's place of residence while enjoying the warmer climes in retirement has come to the front from comments made by the Selectmen's Chair Karel Crawford it is now necessary to transcend town lines a bit. Assuming that Ms. Crawford will, at some point in time, retire from her political and vocational duties and perhaps desire to stay in a place that offers warm outdoor activity in the winter, or cool ocean breezes year round for longer than what we call "vacation"; should we then challenge her loyalty for the Lakes Region and the roots she has established here? Perhaps we should put her in that class she has attempted to establish by her callous and unfeeling comments; "you can't tell me a person who spends six months away really cares what goes on here." (Selectmen's hearing on SB2)

www.citizen.com                                                 March 6, 2008

Editor, The Citizen: The boys at my weekly breakfast outing wanted to know what the real advantages of SB-2 were. I told them I was the luckiest guy in the world because I lived in Meredith where the food is good, dining out excellent, and whether you own a vacation home or condominium you own a piece of paradise. However, even in this spectacular New England town, there is one irresistible opportunity to make our town government better by voting Yes for the SB-2 initiative. The timing is right to show support for the long struggle for democratic voting.

by Sarah Schmidt sschmidt@salmonpress.com
March 06, 2008 MOULTONBORO — In the wake of several charged meetings, three men have stepped forward to announce their intention to run as write-in candidates for the previously uncontested races of selectmen and moderator – Jim Castleberry, Al Hume, and Gary Torressen. Castleberry is running for the office of moderator, held by current Moderator Mel Borrin, and Hume and Torressen run for the two selectmen's seats held by Chairman Karel Crawford and Ed Charest. After recent selectmen's meetings and public hearings for the school and town, Castleberry, Hume, and Torressen said they were disturbed by the tone and actions of the current officials and now seek their seats. "I was very concerned that the tone and accusations leveled at the citizenry were not moderate," said Castleberry. "The tone of discourse has gotten ugly, and it pits citizen against citizen."

www.meredithnhnews.com               March 06, 2008

We don't have too many endorsements to make this year, because of so few uncontested races, but we'll weigh in with our opinion where we can, especially on the topic of experience. Meredith Meredith's got a difficult choice to make in its selectmen race; both Chuck Palm and Jim Waldron would make excellent selectmen, and fine additions to the board. Both have served in town government, and both have the experience, the know-how, and the understanding of the region to be highly-contributing members of the Meredith Board of Selectmen. In the end, though, it's Palm's departmental experience that convinces us to give him our vote. Still, whoever wins on March 11, Meredith can rest easy knowing that a good man will join the board. Sandwich In the race between Leo Dwyer and Randy Hilman for the Board of Selectmen, we're going to have to give Hilman our vote. It's no secret that to understand Sandwich, you have to really live in it, and gather some history on it, just to begin scratching the surface. With some substantial budgetary decisions coming up in the near future, experience and understanding of Sandwich's deepest wants and needs is a necessity, and the person who can best speak to that, we feel, is Hilman. We'd like to add that, whoever wins the election, we'd like to see Sandwich's roads fixed. Rural atmosphere is one thing, tire realignment is quite another. Moultonboro Three candidates have stepped forward as write-ins in order to challenge Moderator Mel Borrin and Selectmen Karel Crawford and Ed Charest in their formerly uncontested campaigns - Castleberry for moderator, and Al Hume and Gary Torressen for selectmen. Though we like to see a contested race instead of an uncontested one, we're going to have to go with the incumbents this time. The decision to campaign should be proactive, not reactionary.

www.meredithnhnews.com

March 06, 2008 To the Editor: With so much attention in Moultonboro focused on the controversial Community Center project and the possible change of our form of government to SB2, many voters might be unaware that there are four proposed zoning amendments on the warrant as well.

www.citizen.com                                                   March 5, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

The commentary from Michael Lancor highlights the critical need in Moultonborough for real change. He mentioned a number of facts and provided information to support his position opposing SB2 for Moultonborough. Many in our town are aware that he is the Superintendent of the Moultonborough School District (whose school board has decided to take a public position opposing SB2 in Moultonborough) . Many are also aware that he is the President of the Moultonborough Lions Club, a focal point in the very spirited debate on the future use of that property as a Community Recreation Center. Not mentioning those positions in his letter is somewhat disingenuous. He is certainly entitled to his own personal opinion, but look at the stark contrast to the Superintendent and School Board of the Inter-Lake's school district. They decided correctly not to take a position on SB2 saying it is a political not an educational issue. Bravo to them! How disappointing to not have the same sort of statesmanship and leadership here in Moultonborough. What a lesson for his students that would have been, one that puts the public interest ahead of personal. One cannot help but be drawn to the conclusion that in his various capacities he has a vested interest in keeping SB2 out of Moultonborough and promoting the funding of a very expensive Community Center.

In his letter he referenced The New Hampshire Center for Public Policy Studies. Mr. Lancor's statements such as the "Center warns us" is meant to give the reader the impression that the Center is opposed to SB2 when in fact they do not take any position and are vigorously bipartisan. "The Center will publicly refute any assertion, whether implicit or explicit, that it has endorsed a policy proposal of any campaign" and in respect to SB2 "The Center takes no position on the issue" as emphatically stated on their website.

He states in the last paragraph that ( in Town Meetings) "voters are guaranteed to vote on budgets as prepared by the Select board and School Board without concern about proposed budgets being controlled by small unelected coalitions during deliberative sessions". Wow. Well, as a member of the "small unelected coalition" ( better known to everyone else as taxpaying citizens of Moultonborough who vote), I am shocked.

I would have preferred to see school officials and board members keep their personal biases out of the public discourse as Inter-Lakes did and focus on doing their jobs.

Does Mr. Lancor believe that there isn't a small group of people already in control of our town and that they do not want to lose that control?

Lastly, here is a real fact from the NH Center for Public Policy not mentioned in his letter. Of the 69 SB2 School Districts in NH, none have rescinded SB2. Not a single one.

Paul Punturieri

Moultonborough

www.citizen.com                           March 5, 2008

Editor, The Citizen:

I find it very ironic that at the same Moultonborough Selectmen's Meeting where the Selectmen were stating the reasons why the Town should not vote for SB2 they were planning to close the Town Dump & Library so that the employees could attend the Town Meeting. If Moultonborough were an SB2 town this would not be necessary. They could vote at any time from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m.

How convenient that the Town can close facilities for Town Meeting. What other businesses can afford to close so that their employees can attend the Meeting?

The non-resident taxpayer may want to use these facilities on the morning of March 15. What service does his tax dollar get him?

In closing let me mention that I am a year round resident of Moultonborough. Otherwise according to the town officials my opinion wouldn't matter.

Jim Morrison

Moultonborough

The New Hampshire Department of Education collects and reports on a wide range of data related to public schools in the state. The reports have been made available in electronic form organized into a variety of data categories. 

New Hampshire Eelection Statutes including SB2, Town Meeting and local government organized by statute.

Town of Moultonborough official web site. Contains links to all departments that have web pages.

Moultonborough School District ( SAU 45) with links to published District documents and School Board Minutes

 

My name is Herbert L. Farnham and I am running for the three year term on the Moultonborough Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The Town officials have decided to cancel Meet the Candidates Night because only two (2) races are contested, ZBA being one of them.  I am dissappointed that I do not have that opportunity to meet Voters and discuss my credentials at that Forum versus others running.

 

     

At Town Meeting on Saturday, March 15th the registered voters in Moultonborough will set the course for future events.  Sure, the Community Center proposal is a big item and that has been actively debated at meetings and in the press.  A topic that has had limited exposure is the repair of Ossipee Park Road that has resurfaced, no pun intended.

 

The MCA is a non-profit citizens group and all who work for it are volunteers. As such we rely totally on volunteer efforts and donations. If you are interested in supporting this important effort and wish to make a monetary donation and/or contribute time and talent, please email us at moultonborocitizensalliance@yahoo.com

Thank you
MCA