January 2009 Archives
January 29, 2009
To the Editor:
On Jan. 14, we attended some hearings on proposed House bills that were sponsored by our State Representative Betsy Patten. Observing and participating in the hearings was certainly a learning experience and well worth the trip to
20 is very difficult to comprehend. A 1000 percent increase did not strike her as a bit over the top? But wait, there’s more. Oops, she did it again with HB71. This one will increase from $100,000 to $1,000,000 municipal bonds that would require a public hearing, another tenfold increase. For example, a bond of $950,000 would not require a public hearing. Outrageous, but at least she’s consistent. To me $950,000 is one fantastic pile of money. Rep. Patten introduced the house bill and said the $1,000,000 is a number she selected and it would be okay for the committee to drop it to $200,000 or what ever they wanted. See what I mean about consistency? Seems she puts out a very high numbermand hopes she gets at least something lower. Something is wrong with that method of proposing House Bills. We are hopeful both bills will be killed in committee.
On the last bill sponsored by Betsey Patten, HB114, she smartly threw in the towel and withdrew it.HB114 was an effort to weaken SB2 by eliminating the deliberative session. SB2 by the way is the way more than half the townspeople in
Jim Leiterman
Moultonboro
The Citizen
By NORMA LOVE
Associated Press Writer
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Lynch said all state spending — except for debt payments — is being scrutinized, including state aid to communities which has been immune to budget cuts in the past. Lynch did not estimate the size of the revenue-spending gap he is trying to fill for the budget that covers the two years beginning July 1.
He said indications are revenue will grow little or not at all until the economy rebounds, perhaps in a couple years. "This is not a forever problem," he said. Gary Smith, president of the State Employees Association, said laying off state workers would be counterproductive and prolong the economic recovery by putting more people out of work. "During tough economic times, people turn more to government for services," he said.
Lynch should wait and plug holes with federal stimulus funds, he said. Smith said Lynch also should look first to cutting back on consultants. The union represents most of the state's 11,500 workers. Lynch noted that the state provided $550 million in aid to communities, not counting school adequacy grants, over the last two years. State aid is for a range of programs, including school construction and direct aid to communities.
A new school aid formula will increase state adequacy grants in the next budget by roughly $100 million. Lawmakers developed the new aid system to comply with a constitutional mandate — but have frozen aid in the past to deal with economic cycles. "We're not looking — at this point — at level funding adequacy grants," Lynch said. But Lynch said he must examine all spending — including other local aid programs — because the times are extraordinary. "We are looking at all of our costs," he said. "I certainly don't want to downshift costs onto cities and towns, and I don't want to affect local property taxes. But we're all in this together." He said communities know they also need to defer nonessential spending. The state must consider the $550 million in aid in determining how to produce a balance budget, he said. Lynch said that he won't consider tax increases until he has cut spending. He reiterated his pledge to veto sales and income taxes.
"If you look at the revenue side first, you don't deal with the cost structure," he said.
He said he has not changed his position on gambling, a revenue source gambling advocates are pushing as a partial answer in the tough economic climate. "I would want to see compelling evidence that it doesn't impact our quality of life," he said. Lynch said he won't spare what he judges to be nonessential programs just to continue receiving federal matching funds. That could affect the social services the state provides.
In his inaugural address, Lynch outlined what he considers the state's core missions: public safety, education, helping the most vulnerable and preserving
Editor, The Citizen January 26, 2009
It is refreshing to see a new president take office with so many differences than previous administrations. This new president started his first day with new house rules, if you will. One of their most important policies is government transparency. This is a tremendous undertaking considering the size of the president's staff for one thing. Let's also take into account the volume of responsibilities, the multitude of levels of importance, and the oftentimes insurmountable task of policing the world. It is mind boggling to think of doing all of these things and remembering that first and foremost, to serve those who elected him into office.
I did a little searching on the White House webpage the day after the inauguration. The site was already updated with information about the new President, VP, and the entire staff. All sorts of information are available. One can even sign up for updates. Imagine that? Updates from the White House! I can hardly wait to get my first one! I look forward to watching this new administration proceed ahead, with their most difficult days yet to come.
It's uplifting to feel the energy and the hope. I wish I could feel that on the local level with a much, much smaller number of government staff. I would love to see transparency in our town of
Unfortunately, this is not always the case. I do believe that most that serve or have served on the Board did not intend to be secretive in their actions. Some may have unknowingly done so. Others have been downright deceitful in a vain effort to pull off their personal plans. What is even more disturbing is the manner in which some Selectmen have treated their constituents. I have witnessed sneers, rolling of eyes, sighs of impatience, condescending remarks and even an underhanded attempt to deny citizens information, or to at least make it difficult to attain documents. This is vehemently denied, of course.
There is evidence of the 'good ol' boys' club in our neighborhood. The same folks have served on various committees and boards for years and years. Some of those people have no intention of stepping aside for other people to have opportunities. Some are even bursting with self importance bordering on arrogance. These are people that resist change of any kind. Be it SB2, limited school and town budgets, public access or most recently an attempt to undermine the rights of voters to request secret ballots at Town Meeting with a House Bill changing the existing law. This does not just affect the good folks of
The bill was mentioned to the citizens of the town less than a week before the bill was presented in
I'm afraid I do not see this as transparency. Rather, I see this as a blatant, deceitful effort to slowly chip away at the rights of citizens. What could possibly be accomplished by this bill? Who benefits? Is this a power play? Is this retaliation for something?
I believe that any person entering into politics at any level has to have thick skin to accept criticism even if it seems unwarranted. When someone cannot accept criticism is then that the 'you know what' starts to sling! That is when I believe transparency becomes murky, and trust in government goes by the wayside.
Transparency and The Right to Know are important laws to help protect citizens from pervasive dishonesty or preferential treatment towards cronies. It is so upsetting to me to watch this behavior from elected officials. How quickly they forget that they were elected by the people, to serve the people. How quickly and easily they lose the values that encouraged citizens to elect them in the first place.
Maybe reality will sink in when someone else takes the votes away. Maybe in this day of technology and instant news, the value of transparency and honesty will expose the murkiness of lies.
Linda N. Punturieri
Moultonborough
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: January 20, 2009
The Moultonborough Selectboard met 1-8-2009 and their published minutes under the section Legislative Update states Rep. Betsey Patten (Selectmen and also State Rep.) "added that she is proposing a bill to increase the number of voters required to request a secret ballot during the Town Meeting. Presently, only five registered voters must request a secret ballot and are not required to be present at Town Meeting. Her bill would set the number required based on the municipalities population. The (Moultonborough) Selectmen expressed their support of Betsey's proposed bill and asked Carter (Terenzini, Town Administrator) to draft a letter of support. Hollis Austin asked the purpose of the bill. She replied that presently only five people can request a secret ballot and not have to be present during the secret ballot, in an effort to make the Town Meeting unnecessarily lengthy."
The above portion in quotation marks is per the Moultonborough Selectboard minutes of 1-8-2009. However our video of that meeting stated 50 voters and that was neglected in the above minutes but the number 50 appears on HB72. Chapter 40 Government of Town Meeting, Section 40:4-a states "5 voters who are present may make a request in writing prior to a vote by voice vote or division vote that the vote be taken by secret written ballot." In essence, it says the five voters must be present and that contradicts a portion of what is stated in paragraph one.
I vigorously state that the voters that submitted petitions did not intentionally delay the voting as implied in paragraph one. Also Moultonboro Citizens Alliance did not submit all the petitions that were presented to the moderator prior to the start of that Town Meeting. Other citizens, who are not members of MCA or proponents of it, collected signatures and signed them as well as they wanted the secret ballots for expenditures over $100,000 which makes sense to me.
The information we received at the 1-8-2009 Selectboard meeting prompted us to attend those house hearings in
On the evening of 1-15-2009, some MCA members attended the Selectboard meeting and were verbally criticized because we did not discuss our differences with Rep. Patten before voicing our opinion in
Rep. Patten, you have it backwards! You submitted HB0072 in June 2008 you waited until 1-8-2009, at the legislative update portion of the selectmen meeting, to let Moultonborough know you had submitted that bill. In true transparency you should have notified local voters you intended to submit a bill on this subject and ask for public input. Or at least notify your constituents after you submitted HB72 in June 2008. Instead you waited less than one week before the hearing in
Rep. Patten, why should we contact you when you are not fulfilling your responsibility to inform and represent those that have put their trust in you?
Jim Leiterman
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: January 24, 2009
The arrogance of some members of the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen never ceases to amaze me. I often feel guilty not having to pay for such incredible entertainment.
On Wednesday January 14th there were hearings in Concord regarding the very bad legislation that Rep. Betsey Patten put forth months ago but was not brought to light until a very few days before the hearings. I have written about that legislation in previous missives so I won't bore you here with redundancy… just understand that these bills were poorly thought out, poorly written and vengeful in the motivation behind them. Little or no thought was given to what anyone in the "law making business" ought to know; research and re-research before putting forth a bill… consider "unintended consequences". Rep. Patten was only thinking about the town in which she sits on the Select board.
But beyond that (and this is where it gets entertaining) Thursday January 15th (the very next day) was the Moultonborough Board of Selectmen's meeting. As there were folks there that had testified at the above mentioned hearings against the legislation, as well as Representative Patten, "Selectman" Patten decided it was a good time to call out and lecture those citizens that had exercised their right to be heard at the Concord hearings.
Wait a minute … let's see … she wrote these bills in June; she waited until less than a week from the hearings before she revealed any information about one of the bills, and forgot to mention anything about the other two. And she expects the citizenry that has a problem with this, speak to her in private, as a courtesy, rather than at a public hearing as is their right. I am sorry.
I have voted for Ms. Patten from the get go and, in the past found her tolerable and sufficient in
Last March 56% and 58% respectively voted for SB2 for the town and the school district in Moultonborough. While SB2 needs 60% to pass, it was enough to threaten the comfort zone of those in opposition of SB2. If over half of the voters want an issue to pass, wouldn't you think their Representative would find better ways to spend her time than trying her level best to derail it? This is not open and transparent government. Watching these shenanigans is entertaining, yes but not at the voters and taxpayers' expense.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen January 22, 2009
Wednesday, January 14th was a red letter day in
Considering that all three bills were written and presented by Representative Betsey Patten of Moultonborough (also one of our Selectmen) it would seem that there was a plan afoot by a local group of officials to cripple voter's rights .....
Editor, The Citizen January 22, 2009
As Law Enforcement officers we live by what the courts say. As Law Enforcement officers we do not always agree with the decisions that the courts make, however we do have to abide by their decisions.
A couple days ago a N.H. Superior Court Judge ruled that the
The
The Meredith News January 22, 2009
SARAH SCHMIDT
LAKES REGION — A change could be coming for all Town Meetings next year, as the state considers whether or not to increase the number of people required for a secret ballot vote. The bill was sponsored by Representative Betsey Patten of Moultonboro, and went before the Municipal and County Government Committee last week to begin hearings. If passed, the bill would increase the number of voters required to request secret balloting and ballot recounts......
The Concord Monitor January 21, 2009
While Betsy Patten of Moultonboro serves as a selectwoman and a state representative, she is working to remove the right of citizens who attend town meetings. Her legislation, House Bill 72, would increase the number of voters required to request secret balloting and secret ballot recounts at meetings.
When I was in meetings with Betsy, when she chaired the House Municipal and County Government Committee, she said there was no need for SB 2. She wanted people to attend the town meeting and speak their mind. But what happens is this: The special interests want a quick meeting and don't want the ability of a secret ballot - so they can boo and hiss when someone doesn't give the special interests all they want.
Just Wednesday night here in
Is this what we call freedom of speech for everyone?
HARRIET E. CADY
The MCA was there....
A hearing was held today @ 11:30am in
You will recall that HB0072 would increase by ten fold to 50 the amount of people required to sign a petition and also be present at Town Meeting to request a secret ballot. The rule that requires the current five persons necessary to request a secret ballot was put in place way back in 1971 and amended in 2006 to requiring them to be present.
Since this would effect Town Meetings throughout NH including SB2 Towns, the public including the MCA showed up to voice opposition.
There were so many speakers in opposition, the hearing ran longer than scheduled.
ALL SPEAKERS WERE OPPOSED. NOT A SINGLE SPEAKER SPOKE IN FAVOR OF HB0072!
Who spoke? Well, two citizens from Moultonboro, but many more from around the state who are adamantly opposed to this bill including:....
Editor, The Citizen January 6th, 2009
As a proponent for SB2, last year I wrote a missive comparing maple syrup production with town governance. At the risk of boring those folks that took time to read that effort, I will refer to it again to show that change, from time to time, is needed.
Town Meetings have had the same format in NH for more than 250 years. The second Tuesday in March, folks left their farms and shops and gathered around the center of town to hear their brethren discuss the needs and issues of the town, and years later the schools; all the while a vote was taken here and there, after much discussion. They made a day of it; bringing forth food for the mid-day and evening meals and sewing to keep the women busy (after all, back then the women did not have a say in the political events). It was as much a social event as anything. But serious work was done, nonetheless. Not much else happened in town on "Town Meeting Day" except the annual discussions, decisions and politicking of the town.
The day after Town Meeting was usually relegated to tapping the sugar maples for the other age old spring tradition: Sappin' Season. Over decades, the technology of wooden spigots and buckets gave way to metal spigots and buckets, and a tin lid to keep out the snow. In more recent years sap is collected with plastic tubing and boiling is done by gas or oil, not wood fired evaporators. Even the dates of the season have been adjusted for climate change. Has the sweet flavor of grade A light amber (or my personal "fav" grade A dark amber) changed? No. The methodology has changed. The timing has changed. Even the grading has been altered … but the result is the same wonderful product.
Town Meeting has not changed much. It takes a full day of being away from home, employment, or avocation in order to vote. The food brought forth is that of a food sale, and a few ladies still bring sewing as a pastime. But the result is not the same. Not everyone in the town is allowed to vote. We have, over the years, recognized that women and those young adults over 18 should share in the voting at the ballot. Ah, but town meeting has a different guideline in allowing or disallowing a person to exercise their right to vote. No matter what is going on in your life, you have to take the day and devote it to Town Meeting. Are you working, sick, out of town, at school or in the military? Well then, they don't want your vote. At least it would seem that way. The result is that the opinions discussed and voted on at Town Meeting represent only a small minority who are afforded the right to vote 'cause they are there. Clearly they do not represent the opinion of the entire town.
Two ancient
SB-2 will be on the ballot again this March in Moultonborough and Meredith. In both towns, last year SB-2 received well over a majority of votes in favor of it, but missed passage by a handful of votes because SB-2 needs 60% (a super majority). We need your vote to bring these two towns up to date with more than half of the population in NH that has already opted for SB-2 as their form of voting.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
The Citizen Friday, January 16, 2009
By BEA LEWIS
bwheel@metrocast.net
A bill to substantially increase how many voters it would take to call for a secret-ballot vote at Town Meeting will mostly likely be amended, the bill's prime sponsor reports.
State Rep. Betsey Patten, R-Moultonborough, initially sought to increase from five to 50 the number of people who must be present at Town Meeting plus sign a petition asking that a certain warrant article by voted on by secret ballot rather than by a show of hands. For towns with populations of fewer than 500 currently a total of three signatures are needed.
But following a hearing before the House Municipal and County Government Committee Wednesday Patten said it appears the bill will be amended to set the number at 10 or 15, or perhaps 5 percent of the voters on hand for the meeting. During the hearing process, Patten said, it came to the committee's attention that hamlets like Hart's Location in
"I know there is a lot of angst out there (about this legislation), but this hasn't been changed since 1971 when it was a lot more civil time," Patten said.
The fate of the bill will most likely be decided by the committee during a Tuesday, Jan. 27, session, she said.
Meanwhile, the Moultonborough Citizens Alliance which opposes the bill reports that no one spoke in favor of the proposed measure during the latest public hearing.
Opponents say the legislation is akin to stealing the rights of town meeting attendees across
Arguments against the proposed bill are similar to those made in favor of Senate Bill 2 that requires all town meeting articles to be voted on by secret ballot - that anyone who raises their hand against a particular article befitting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and teachers.
Rick Heath of Moultonborough, who vehemently opposes the bill, questions why the voting booth or an absentee ballot is the norm for the election of town and state officials and state mandated articles on the warrant, but not for spending issues.
"This is bad legislation," he said stressing that lengthening a meeting to allow for secret ballot voting is no reason to make it more difficult to do so. Patten did not believe the bill would be voted "in expedient to legislation," a move that would essentially kill it for this session.
The Citizen, Letter to the Editor January 14, 2009
This is an open letter to Rep. Betsey Patten.
I have just learned of a bill (HB-0072) that you authored requiring an increase by 1000% the number of voters at a town meeting needed to request a private vote on any particular article, making it virtually impossible for a secret ballot/private vote. How duplicitous of you to make this covert attempt to essentially steal the rights of town meeting attendees across NH to petition for a private vote. As a representative of Moultonborough both as selectman and as a member of the NH General Court you have betrayed those who have supported you to date. If ever there was a need to have the voting initiative SB2, it is now. You have made clear the reason why
At last town meeting (March '08) a group of voters legally and reasonably petitioned to have each spending article over $100,000 voted on by secret ballot. The issues at that town meeting were huge and the consequences potentially disastrous, considering the present economic trends. The Moderator and those of you on the dais were obviously very troubled, even offended, as it posed a delay in your schedule. Is democracy, under your rules, to be set aside for a more expedient method of having your way with the taxpayer? No, Representative Patten, it is not. This is bad legislation and I hope that your constituents in Moultonborough, Tuftonboro and Wolfeboro are made aware of the actions you have taken against their voting rights. Further, as a consequence of this one incident at Moultonborough town meeting, you are attempting to push through legislation that would affect voters all across the State of
The good folks of the State of
To the voters and taxpayers of Moultonborough, Why is it that voting in a booth throughout the day or by absentee ballot is OK for election of town and state officials and state mandated articles of the warrant, but not for spending issues?
We all know the truth is that town meetings are stacked with those most affected by spending articles. Anyone that wants to raise their hand against a particular article benefiting those affected sets themselves up for intimidation by their neighbors, customers, friends and, yes, even teachers of their kids. Intimidation is the name of the game. They speak so emotionally against SB2 because they fear the power of the secret ballot. They fear SB2 so much they attempted to change the entire governance of Moultonborough by suggesting a "
Taxpayers and voters alike contact your state representative (even if it is Ms. Patten) and tell them this is bad legislation. You can find these folks and how to contact them on the web at www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house. This bad legislation may be coming to a town near you.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
Is Moultonboro moving toward a Town Manager?
In order to have a town manager, the voters must adopt the provisions of RSA Chapter 37 at an annual meeting. The question must be included on the warrant.
In the following minutes from the Selectmen budget workshop of 1/9/2009, it is being suggested that the “Town Administrator being delegated day to day line authority over the CEO (Code Enforcement Officer) and Director.” Carter Terenzini proposed in the 12/10/2008 workshop to create an Office of Development & Inspectional Services (ODIS). At that meeting the CEO expressed his strong feelings that the CEO be independent and report only to the Selectmen. We would agree. The Selectmen are after all elected officials and ultimately should have authority directly over this important function. A Town Administrator serves at the whim of the Selectmen and unlike a Town Manager has no statutory authority (RSA Chapter 37). Most importantly the voters of Moultonboro have not been heard.
MCA
Monthly School Board Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Town Hall Meeting Room
6:30 P.M. NON-PUBLIC SESSION: Under RSA 91-A:3, Paragraph II (a), (b), (c)
7:00 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7:02 P.M. PERSONNEL ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PUBLIC INPUT
7:05 P.M. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 9, 2008 School Board Meeting and January 8, 2009 Special Board Budget Meeting
7:06 P.M. GENERAL ITEMS:
A. Student Council Report* D. ABC Recommendations*
B. Senior Class Trip* E. 2009-2010 Budget Draft #3*
C. Ice Hockey Team Approval F. Other Matters
7:40 P.M. CHAIRPERSON’S REPORT:
A. Calendar C. Other Matters
B. NHSBA Delegate Assembly*
7:45 P.M. PUPIL PERSONNEL SERVICES DIRECTOR’S REPORT:
A. Including Samuel B. Other Matters
Special School Board Budget Meeting
Thursday, January 8, 2009
SAU Conference Room
Present: Bill Blackadar, Mark Borrin, Laurie Whtley, Fox Smith, Mike Lancor, Kay Peranelli, Andy Coppinger, Scott Laliberte and Lou Goscinski
At 4:05 p.m. Chairperson Blackadar called the meeting to order and led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The following documents regarding Draft #2 of the FY10 Proposed Budget were reviewed:
• Budget Draft #2 by Function
• Budget Draft #2 by Account Code
• Budget Draft #2 Projected Revenues and Assessment
• Summary of Increases and Decreases for Budget Draft #2
These four documents were previously reviewed by the Board during their December 9, 2008 regular monthly meeting.
Superintendent Michael Lancor brought forward to the School Board several recommendations that would further decrease the proposed 2009-10 budget. The following documents were presented and discussed:
• Recommended reductions totaling $150,791.
• Summary of Increases and Decreases including recommended reductions.
• Fixed Budget Decreases.
After review and discussion, the Board authorized administration to prepare Budget Draft #3 to incorporate the recommended reductions. Budget Draft #3 will be further reviewed during the School Board Meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2008.
The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Bill Blackadar at 4:54 p.m
The School district budget will be up for discussion again this week ( Thursday January 8 @ 4pm , SAU offices). This is a public meeting, so if you can, please attend. The budget documents indicate that the
· An increase of 17.23% or $76,458 for NHRS (New Hampshire Retirement System). This is due to the employer/District rate increasing from 8.74% (2008-2009) to 9.09%.
· An increase of 5.08% or $63,829 for health insurance. This is the result of an increase of 8.6% for the BCBS Plan and 3.7% for the Dental Plan.
· The average salary increase for each teacher is approximately 5%.
· Non-teaching staff not under the collective bargaining agreement will receive the same 5% increase. (This is not in line with what we have seen in surrounding school districts or in line with the current economic downturn).
Other areas that show significant increases include:
- Special education budget increase of 58.04% or $37,847 for Professional Services. It is unclear as to what additional professional services are being offered.
- Increased cost for fuel oil and electricity of approx. $45,000.
What happens next? The Advisory Budget Committee (ABC) has until January 27 to present recommendations to the School Board. It is worth remembering that the ABC has no real budget authority unlike a true budget committee. Read this article to get the full background as to how we got here.
At the last school board meeting a member of the public requested that Kay Peranelli create a glossary for the public in order to decipher all the codes in the budget documents. We are not aware that this has been provided.
Questions? Feel free to email the School Board/ABC as follows:
Michael Lancor, Superintendent mlancor@moultonborough.k12.nh.us
Bill Blackadar, School Board Chair blackadar@verizon.net
Jean Beadle, Chair Budget Advisory Committee jbeadle@nhecwb.com
MCA
Moultonborough Advisory Budget Committee
Final
Meeting Minutes
Friday, December 23, 2008
In Attendance: Advisory Budget Committee (ABC) Members Jean Beadle, Karel Crawford, Ed Marudzinski,
The Chairperson called the meeting to order at 10:05 A.M. in the Town Hall Conference Room.
A motion was requested for the acceptance of the notes for the December 15, 2008 meeting of the ABC. Jean Beadle made the motion and Ed Marudzinski seconded it. Motion passed unanimously
The objective of this meeting was to review and summarize the individual comments and recommendations of each ABC member relative to the School Budget, and prepare a talking paper to provide to the School with our recommendations and comments.
The input was reviewed and the members reached consensus opinions on all recommendations and comments.
Ed offered to prepare the minutes and draft the summary results.
A motion was made by Karel Crawford, seconded by Ed Marudzinski to adjourn the meeting at 11:55 A.M. the motion was approved unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Ed Marudzinski
ABC Board Member
12/28/2008
Moultonborough Advisory Budget Committee
Meeting Minutes
Friday, December 19, 2008
In Attendance: Advisory Budget Committee (ABC) Members Jean Beadle, Ed
Marudzinski, Karel Crawford
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 3:34 P.M. in
A motion was requested for Cancellation of the meeting due to weather by Karel Crawford. Jean Beadle seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
The rescheduled ABC meeting will be Tuesday, December 23, 2008 at 10:00 AM in the Moultonboro Municipal Building Meeting Room.
Respectfully submitted,
Jean Beadle
12/20/2008
Moultonborough Advisory Budget Committee
Draft Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 15, 2008
In Attendance: Advisory Budget Committee (ABC) Members Jean Beadle, Ed Marudzinski, Karel Crawford, Kathy Garry, and Gary Haracz
The meeting was called to order by the Chairperson at 1:04 P.M. in Moultonboro Library Heritage Room.
A motion was requested for the acceptance of the notes for the December 4, 2008 meeting of the ABC. Ed Marudzinski made the motion and Kathy Garry seconded it. Motion passed unanimously.
The agenda for the ABC meeting was a general discussion of the School Budget and the Town/Library Budget Draft as presented to the Moultonboro Board of Selectman by Carter Terenzini and department heads on December 10, 2008.
The second half of the presentation of the Town/Library Budget Draft scheduled for December 12, 2008 was postponed due to weather and re-scheduled to December 19, 2008.
Discussion items and outcomes.
Committee members made recommendations as to the format for their eventual report to the School Board/Administration.
• Prepare a Heads-Up comprised of bullets as an introductory document supplied to the School Board/Administration before hand
• Committee members will an oral presentation to the School Board
• The ABC formal written report will then be prepared as a documented follow up.
The Committee decided that the same process would take place with the Town/Library Budgets and Boards.
Members discussed areas of interest from the School/Town Draft Budgets presented so far. In anticipation of the final Town session, additional areas of interest were noted.
As mentioned above, Committee members are scheduled to attend the final session of the Town Library Budget Draft presentations to be held in day long sessions on December 19, 2008.
The next scheduled ABC meeting will be Friday, December 19, 2008 at 3:30 P.M. in the Moultonboro Municipal Building Meeting Room.
A motion was made by Ed Marudzinski, seconded by Jean Beadle, to adjourn the meeting at 3:05 P.M. The motion was approved unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Gary Haracz
Vice-Chair
12/16/2008
OFFICE OF SELECTMEN
Selectmen’s Workshop December 19, 2008
MINUTES
Present: Karel A. Crawford, Edward S. Charest, James F. Gray, Joel R. Mudgett, Betsey L. Patten; Carter Terenzini, Town Administrator; ABC Members, Jean Beadle, Ed Marudzinski(12:50pm). Absent: Gary Harascz and Kathleen Garry Absent (with prior notification).
The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:10 a.m.
1. Highway: Scott Kinmond and the Town Administrator touched on the major change of the year which is moving Building & Grounds personnel costs to Highway, signaling a move to a consolidated Public Works Department. There was discussion on the merits of moving to a,Pavement Management System (PMS) and the proposed Capital Program for the new Dept. of Public Works. There were questions on the uniform costs with
There was a discussion of the sand/salt Magic-O accounts....
Monthly School Board Meeting Agenda
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Town Hall Meeting Room
Present: Bill Blackadar, Kathy Garry, Fox Smith, Mark Borrin, Laurie Whitley, Michael Lancor, Kay Peranelli, Andrew Coppinger, Scott Laliberte, Lou Goscinski and Laurie Caldwell
Chairman Blackadar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led attendees in the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. Personnel Announcements: The Chairperson announced the following personnel appointments during non-public session:
• MTA Coordinator: Andrea Bonner
• MA Paraprofessional: Rebecca Morgan
Public Input: None.
Approval of Minutes:
A. Laurie Whitley moved, and Fox Smith seconded a motion, to approve the minutes from the November 10, 2008 School Board meeting and November 24, 2008 Special Budget Meeting. All voted in favor....
