March 2009 Archives
New bill seen as threat to gov't transparency
|
By ROBERT M. COOK |
Fosters Daily Democrat Sunday, March 29, 2009
A debate is under way over whether e-mail from lawmakers' constituents should be kept confidential and not be considered government records.
The debate could lead to changes in the state's Right to Know law.
The debate is also an example of how technology constantly changes and makes it harder to define what a public record is, said state Rep. James Garrity, R&D-Atkinson, chairman of the state's Right to Know Oversight Commission.
"We're always looking to see if substantive improvements need to be made," he said. "The electronic world is a fascinating world because it's a moving target."
State Reps. Neal Kurk, R-Weare, and Frank Tupper, D-Canterbury, have cosponsored House Bill 349, which would designate electronic communication between state lawmakers and constituents as confidential. It also would let state lawmakers decide which electronic communications from constituents would be public record.
The House passed the bill Tuesday. It now will be taken up in the state Senate.
On whether the Right to Know Law currently addresses the issue raised by House Bill 349, Garriety replied, "Yes and no."
He said he believes language in the law that precludes public officials from doing anything that violates the spirit of the law "really is the catch-all."
Kurk said Friday that the bill would add another layer of protection for constituents afraid e-mails sent to lawmakers could become public record.
He said it also may benefit the state and legislators because they'd continue to get valuable information from people who may be facing difficult situations.
"It's not a public conversation, and it shouldn't be a public record," Kurk said of constituent e-mails. He added that he believes they are the same as letters or phone calls intended for him only.
Attorney Peter Caruso of
"The e-mail secret records amendment flies in the face of the intent and purpose of the public records act," he wrote in an e-mail to the newspaper. "There is no precedent for secret governmental records which are not exempt by a specific statutory provision — this is the wholesale sealing of a singled-out class of records."
Attorney Richard Gagliuso of
"Is the Legislature trying to protect themselves and not the constituents?" he asked. "It's dangerous to leave the consent power up to legislators and not the constituent."
For example, he said, a legislator could get an e-mail from a constituent complaining about the lawmaker's attendance record and the lawmaker simply could choose to keep it confidential. If a constituent emphatically states in an e-mail they want their comments in support of a bill added to a committee's testimony, Gagliuso said there is no way of knowing if the legislator will follow through.
The bill also doesn't address e-mails or electronic communications written by legislators to constituents, Gagliuso said.
He also wonders if the bill is intended to offer consent power to state legislators and not other public officials at the local and county levels, or if that was an oversight.
If the bill is approved as written, he said the public would be able to retrieve any e-mails written by residents to city councils, school boards or county commissioners, but not e-mails written to state lawmakers.
The bill also only addresses past and current members of the House and Senate, Gagliuso said. It says nothing about e-mails or electronic communication sent to the governor, Executive Council or state agency heads.
Attorney John Lassey of
He believes House Bill 349 isn't even necessary because the Right to Know law already clarifies the difference between a governmental and non-governmental record.
He said Friday that when e-mail or electronic communication takes place between a quorum of public officials on any public body outside a public meeting, it is legally considered a "meeting" and must become governmental record.
If an individual lawmaker gets an e-mail from a constituent and the lawmaker also chairs or serves on a committee and the e-mail has to be shared with the entire public body, he said, that would be a governmental record.
But if a constituent e-mails an individual lawmaker and does not address them as a member of a committee, that could be confidential, he said.
The Right to Know Oversight Commission was established by the Legislature in 2003, two years after the state Supreme Court ruled the state's law needed to be updated to recognize the role of electronic communication of governmental records.
Kurk said the bill, if passed, would help give constituents added peace of mind that any e-mails they send legislators would be kept confidential.
Kurk said he'll sometimes get e-mail from state employees who alert him about problems they've encountered at agencies, but the employees wish to remain anonymous.
Lawmakers would be at a disadvantage without such protection, Kurk said.
As a trial lawyer, Lassey said the bill's call to shield all e-mail and electronic communication from subpoena or court proceedings is troubling. He said it would give legislators and constituents the same confidential privilege legally recognized for doctors and their patients, lawyers and their clients or priests and penitents.
"This is a rather sweeping change to the rules of evidence," he said.
The House Judiciary Committee, not the House Executive Departments and Administration Committee, should have reviewed the legislation before the House approved it, he said.
If approved, the bill could have a huge impact on any cases involving legislators, he added.
Larry Laughlin, Associated Press Northern New England Bureau chief, said legislation such as HB 349 could open the door to more restrictions on electronic communication involving public officials.
"I think they should be part of the public record when it relates to the lawmakers' jobs," said Laughlin, also a founding member of the New England First Amendment Coalition, a six-state group made up of newspaper editors in partnership with
"If you start making exemptions, where does it end?" he asked.
He said the issue of electronic communication, public records and how online services like Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and blogs are used is important for public officials and journalists.
As hard as the state's Right to Know law tried to get its arms around all the issues posed by electronic communication, he said, "You can't legislate everything."
On Tuesday, March 17,2009 a Public Hearing of importance to all property owners was held at the Legislative Office Building in Concord, New Hampshire. At that time, the Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee and Committee Chair Jacalyn Cilley presided over testimony on Senate Bill 198 (SB 198) that proposes changes to the existing Assessing Standards Board.
The Assessing Standards Board (ASB) is responsible for recommending property taxation guidelines for assessing standards throughout the state, including development of the manual used by local assessing officials.
State Senator Deborah Reynolds, sponsor of SB 198, explained that the bill increases the number of public members on the ASB from 3 to 5 members in order to include more NH residents who are not trained in any specific area and are just average NH property tax payers. Additionally, the Board should be a people's board and therefore the chair should not be a legislator.
Executive Councilor Raymond Burton supported the bill, noting that SB 198 is nonpartisan and expressing his concern that more citizens are not given an opportunity to become involved in their government, including such boards and commissions. Of the ASB, he explained that "this is a perfect example of where more citizens should be involved" and dismissed arguments that citizens might have an agenda or might not be sufficiently informed to make decisions. He reminded everyone that guidance is always available from the Attorney General's Office. Councilor Burton added that about 700 nominations of citizens to our government go through the Governor's Executive Council each year and 99 percent of the time they've been very successful and they are a compliment to the citizenry of our state.
(A Note to Moultonborough Voters: The condescending argument used by some that citizens might have an agenda or not be sufficiently informed or educated enough to participate in the decisions of their own government will sound familiar because this ruse was recently used in Moultonborough to defeat SB2 and exclude the majority of voters from exercising their right to vote on town warrant articles. Apparently this argument against more citizen participation is also prevalent at the state level.)
Concern was expressed by those testifying in support of SB 198 that the current ASB has a disproportionate number of assessors and selectmen acting in this capacity and insufficient public representation. Those testifying against SB 198 insisted that assessing professionals can provide the greatest technical expertise, citing other state boards where professionals predominate.
Those supporting SB 198 represented a diverse group of NH citizens, including two from Moultonborough, who believe in more citizens being allowed to participate hi the decisions their government makes. Those opposing SB 198 were two assessors, a lawyer for the NH Municipal Association and one state representative.
All property owners should consider the benefits of Senate Bill 198, as it promotes greater representation by property owners. After viewing this video, you may want to express your views to Senator Cilley and her committee that held this hearing and is now considering the future of SB198. You may also want to contact SB198 supporters Senator Reynolds, Senator Gallus and Executive Councilor Burton. If you believe that the fight for citizens' rights is ongoing, make your voice heard and protect your rights by contacting legislators. Your letter could make the difference.
A request to start a fire on Long Island Beach Point on or about March 30 at 1800 hours.
Francis J. Horne retires. We wish him the very best.
Watch out for overspending on the new Town Planner's salary and keep an eye on mission creep and an expansion of powers and more costs. Some already want to change the title voted on at Town Meeting to something like Director of the Office of Development Services, arguing that it is important to the culture of the organization. Do we really want to focus on development rather than planning? There are also differing opinions as to who should select the employee and control this new position.
The effort continues to reduce the county budget increase down to within 4-6 percent from the 13 percent increase planned.
SARAH SCHMIDT
The Meredith News Marfch 19, 2009
MOULTONBORO —
Moultonboro residents voted in favor of creating a new playing field and beginning repairs on an old one, after an amendment shifted the majority of the tax appropriation to a reserve fund. “This is going to allow us to fix the existing field and continue to meet the recreational needs of the community,” said Parks and Recreation Director Donna Kuethe. “I’m happy.” The article called for $337,500 for field improvements, drainage design, and associated design costs for the construction of a playing field on the former Lions Club land.The total sum of the article will come from three places, and originally in these amounts - $87,500 from the Community Center Trust Fund established last year, $137,500 from general taxation, and $107,500 from the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Selectmen voted 3-2 to recommend the article last month. The first obstacle to passage of the article was in the article preceding it, asking for a rewording of the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. The change expanded the usage of the fund from constructing a building to using it to also design, engineer and equip a building. This article, created in 1993, and carrying a balance of $972,975.10, came with a bit of disagreement of its own, as selectmen voted 4-1 in favor of it. “Changing this fund is not in accordance with what people voted for in the past,” said Selectman Ed Charest. “If there is a new need, get
a new fund.” Selectman Joel Mudgett disagreed, however, asking residents to approve the article to clear the way for its use for other actions besides construction of a building. “We’ve got $972,975 in the fund, and no future plans for it,” said Selectman Chair Karel Crawford. The article passed by secret ballot, in a vote of 212- 78, attaining more than the necessary 60 percent to pass at 74 percent. In the next article, voters debated the issue of constructing a new playing field and repairing the old one on
part by the Municipal Buildings reserve fund. Of the $337,500, $300,000 would go for field construction, drainage design, and design costs, and $37,500 for construction of a pathway. One resident asked how funds from the
Selectmen Charest and Betsey Patten voted against recommending the article earlier in the year. Both selectmen spoke of the uncertain economic outlook, and of future expenses to the
town, questioning whether the field repair and construction could wait a bit longer. “I did not support this as a state representative and a selectman,” said Patten. “If you look at what’s going on at the state level. We’re working hard not to spend so much, and put down as low a percentage as possible. I felt this was something we could put off - there are other factors involved in what we want here in Moultonboro.” Ken Tatro, who coached soccer in Moultonboro last year, called the
Residents vote down video production warrant article
SARAH SCHMIDT
The Meredith News March 19, 2009
MOULTONBORO — After passing a $13 million budgetand other monetary budget items, it was an article for student audio/visual classes without funding attached that residents debated on for the greatest length of time, eventually voting it down. A petitioned warrant article on the Moultonboro School District Warrant asked residents to decide whether to create an educational program for students to record, produce, and broadcast
Blackadar. “We prefer not to have the education program dictated to us.” Advisory Budget Committee Chair Jean Beadle also spoke against the article and said that before the issue could be seriously considered, the total cost of teachers and equipment should be studied and brought before the town. The article was defeated in a voice vote. The entire meeting finished in about 30 minutes. Residents approved the $13,826,135 budget for the
Editor: The Meredith News March 19, 2009
The town of
Mark E. Lamprey
The Meredith News March 19, 2009
Editorial
At almost every town meeting we covered this year, there were debates about whether town employees and/ortown officials should get raises. The results were mixed.In Tilton, an amendment to cut the 3.5-percent raises allocated to all town employees – a total of more than $14,000 – was voted down. An amendment in Moultonboro that would have nixed 2.5-percent raises, plus step increases, for town employees was defeated. On the flip side, two towns’ residents voted down raises of much smaller doses. In
Editor: The Citizen March 18, 2009
On Saturday afternoon shortly before 3:30 p.m., 194 of the approximately 4,000 registered voters in Moultonborough (less than 5%) cast their vote on the $8,249,747.00 town operating budget. Such apathy is inexcusable. Those voters who were UNABLE to attend (work, health, travel,etc.) have my understanding. Those who CHOSE not to attend have no right to complain about EXCESSIVE SPENDING in these economic times.
Would I have preferred to be doing something else on a beautiful Saturday? - ABSOLUTELY! Sometimes you just have to do the right thing.
Penny Morrison
Moultonborough
To the editor, Laconia Daily Sun March 17, 2009
We just came back from the Moultonborough Town Meeting. It was a joke. The selectman are still
snaking all the ball field at the Lions Club, which they should hold off on. The economy is falling apart
and people are hurting. Ball fields are NOT needed at this time. What are the selectmen thinking?
Now they say the Town Hall needs a new roof because the roofer who put it on did not do a good job and it isleaking. So why not take the money you want to use for the ball fields and use that for the Town Hall roof? Now that makes more sense. The ball field proposal is a joke. Where is the reason for this? Don’t you think the roof is the towns first concern and NOT the ball fields. Next you will be telling us the safety building needs a roof and the library. Where does it end? Our hard-earned tax dollars are being wasted. The selectman snake anything and everything they want. Our votes do not mean much. This is another reason why SB-2 should have gone through. We need to take the power back to the taxpayers, not the special interest. They know who they are. Someone needs to tell
them we are in a bad state of the economy.
Anna DeRose, Moultonborough
Library closing for town meeting
Editor, The Citizen: March 12th, 2009
Gentlemen, I see that the selectmen have closed the library this Saturday so the employees may attend town meeting. I had intended to go to meeting too but must work and so my right to vote on matters that affect me is denied. I have been disenfranchised. I went to the town office to talk to someone from the selectmen's office, no one was in. I did talk with the town administrator, he suggested I take a "personal" day off from my job at Aubuchon Hardware. He must not have worked in the private sector for some time as one does not just do that. I tried to find someone to trade days with, no luck. There are only four of us working that day so if I just didn't go to work they would be put in a bad bind and I wouldn't get paid.
I find it insulting that you would give the good folks at the library a chance to vote when the working stiffs in town don't get that opportunity (those of us not working for the town make on average $200 a week less than public employees by the way, I got that from the Moultonboro.gov site). A cynical person might surmise that town workers are free to over represent themselves at meeting while those working to pay their salaries lose our chance to have our voices counted.
Finally I would like to know if the person or persons who mounted a phone campaign telling residents that out of state property owners would have voting privileges should SB2 pass when that is not the case can be investigated for knowingly lying to affect the outcome of Tuesday's election. At least one of the callers might have an official connection to the town. I feel that that person or persons did a dishonorable thing and should at least issue a public apology.
Would like to say "see you Saturday" but I am not allowed to vote.
Michael Brooker
Moultonborough
To the editor,
At town meeting on March 14th, Article 18 is asking voters to approve $50,000 to hire a Town Planner to help enact planning issues in Moultonborough. The article as written does not mention that the $50,000 is for a half year’s salary. The Selectmen estimated the actual annual salary including benefits to be in the $90,000 to $100,000 range, depending on if the benefits package is a single or family plan. Are we at a point where adding permanent fixed staff to our payroll is fiscally responsible? Or should we be looking for other options? I understand the need for good planning and I’m all for Moultonborough keeping its rural charm and beauty. I had the opportunity this past year to serve on one of the Master Plan Committees and know implementing the Master Plans many recommendations will present challenges for the Planning and Zoning Boards. Because of the downturn in the economy, the number of new projects will most likely be reduced thus allowing those elected to the boards to focus more on administrative matters and planning. Moultonborough is a member of the Lakes Region Planning Commission, we pay a fee for its services as do 30 other towns. One of LRPC’s functions is to offer planning assistance. Some towns share a planner called a “circuit rider” and others contract with the LRPC on an as needed basis. In fact, neighboring
Nancy Wright
Moultonborough
40:4-a Secret Ballot. –
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, on the request of 5 voters who are present, the moderator shall conduct a recount on any vote taken by secret written ballot under subparagraph (a). The recount shall take place immediately following public announcement of the vote taken providing that the vote margin is not more than 10 percent of the total vote cast. There shall be no fee required for a recount under this section.
II. At any meeting of a town of a population 500 or less, 3 voters who are present may request secret balloting or recounting as provided in paragraph I.
Source. 1971, 524:1. 1994, 71:1, eff. July 5, 1994. 2006, 117:1, eff. July 9, 2006.
40:4-b Questioning a Vote. –
Source. 1971, 524:1, eff. July 7, 1971.
40:10 Optional Restriction on Reconsideration. –
II. Upon approval of a motion to reconsider any vote or warrant article subject to such a restriction, actual reconsideration shall take place at an adjourned session of the meeting, held at least 7 days after the date on which the motion to reconsider was approved. Notice of the date, time and place where the adjourned session is to be held shall be given by announcement prior to the close of the session at which the motion to reconsider was approved, and shall also be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality at least 2 days before the reconsideration.
III. A restriction adopted under this section shall continue until final adjournment of the meeting at which it is adopted, or any adjourned session of such meeting.
IV. A restriction adopted under this section shall apply to any subsequent action by the meeting which alters or modifies the result of the restricted vote, or which involves the same subject matter as does the restricted vote or warrant article, regardless of whether or not the term ""reconsider'' is actually used.
V. This section shall apply to town meetings, village district meetings under RSA 52, cooperative school district meetings under RSA 195, and school district meetings under RSA 197.
Source. 1991, 284:2; 1992, 244:1, eff. July 12, 1992. 1996, 64:1, eff. July 1, 1996.
It will be very interesting to see how things shake out on Tuesday night, in regards to SB2 in Meredith and Moultonboro, along with the Moultonboro and
The Meredith News
To the editor,
The Citizen March 9, 2009
The prescription plan for solving grotesque spending is to implement SB-2. We have enjoyed tremendous increases in Meredith’s debt and tax increases due to the ability of a flamboyant School Board and Board of Selectmen to manipulate the budget and Town Meetings. The “Barbarians” are truly at the gate when local government can continue year-after-year to provide less information on reasons for increasing our taxes without providing us with the ability to thwart their quintessential increases in budgets. Leadership fails to respond to a public that is not apathetic, but worn out by worry and over work. The School Board and Selectboard, with their enormous egos, have been hugely successful at gathering forces at town meetings to pass whatever they want. They assume we are the richest people in the state. Some folks live from hand to mouth to make their daily commitments and salary go further. We face rising taxes, inflation , job losses, reductions in retirement plans and reduced income. Personal serenity and security is something of the past. School boards fail to respond to the shocking increases in budgets. They show a manifold dereliction of their duties when they manufacture and manipulate Town Meetings. These boards have virtually unlimited power and no ethics and this situation requires voting reform. Advantages of SB-2: We must launch an effort to shut
down the spending and initiate a process of getting more people involved in the budget approval process and to the voting both. This effort can be achieved by approval of Senate Bill -2 (SB-2) which gives those that are unable to be present for Town Meeting a chance to vote by absentee ballot and the ability for those that are present in the community to vote by secret ballot in the privacy of a regular voting booth during a time of personal convenience. SB-2 permits voters to vote conveniently during regular voting hours during the day.The movers and shakers continue to dominate the budget process with stunts like voting on the big budget cost items at Town Meetings last, at 11 p.m.. Hours are spent on a list of items with smaller significance and at 11 p.m. the major budget of over $10-million comes up for discussion without much opportunity to discuss the line items. Last year an hour was spent on a presentation regarding the fire department and another hour on Long Pond.. There was no presentation on the enormous budget. No PowerPoint graphs and charts were presented as information by either the School Board or the Selectboard. There were no graphs or charts demonstrating performance on state standardized tests, SAT test scores or how we stacked up against other school districts, or a willingness to elaborate on how we spend so much money per student for average results. No voter had the opportunity to ask why we have such a blotted educational administration. For instance, why do we need an assistant superintendent of schools for such a small school district with declining enrollments. No one asked why we need a dormitory and apartments in the fire station renovation project. We need a return of public freedom fighters who want to take our liberties back and allow us to challenge the status quo and a militant political active teachers’ union. We need to vote YES for SB-2, which will give the voter the opportunity to vote in a voting booth and permit the use of the absentee ballot so we can engage in debate. Are you ready to join in the process of taking back our government. Advance freedom and vote YES for SB-2 providing all registered voters the opportunity to vote in a voting booth.
VOTE YES FOR SB-2!
Richard Gunnar Juve
Meredith
Moultonboro Citizens Alliance
Editorial March 7, 2009
In recent days,
Annual town and school district meetings are traditionally poorly attended. There is a higher percentage of the registered voters at town meeting than at the SB2 deliberative session, but the reason for that is because it is the only time people get to vote. Rapid decisions after often emotional debates with little time to think through the issues. Not so with SB2. The deliberative session offers a month or more of reading, asking questions and being better informed on the issues. Then at the voting session every registered voter can vote, even by absentee ballot in the privacy of the voting booth. The proof of SB2’s success is the much high voter turnout on ballot day. Here in Moultonboro, 33% voted in the last municipal election vs. just 11% (down to 4% at the end) at town meeting a few days later. In many SB2 towns, that percentage is even higher.
Contrary to what some believe, the rules for the deliberative town meeting do not vary from traditional town meeting. They are identical. The moderator follows exactly the same procedures. The debates continue exactly the same way. Secret ballots can still be requested. Reconsideration can be restricted. Amendments are voted on in exactly the same way. We still have town meeting. The only change is who, when and how you vote.
The ability for all voters to vote on all issues in private cannot and should not be underestimated. School meetings are notorious for packing the bleachers with staff, many of whom are not registered voters to be cheerleaders and promote the intimidation factor that is so prevalent at these sessions. With SB2, that is mitigated (although that can still occur at the deliberative town meeting) with the ballot box. SB2 ends voter disenfranchisement. You no longer have to physically attend an annual meeting for your vote to count.
SB2 towns have much better informed voters. They have the enormous benefit of time that you don’t have with traditional town meeting. All the information voters need to make decisions can be made available in local newspapers and the internet. You can ask questions of town and school officials. SB2 gives you the opportunity to sit and discuss an issue with a selectmen or school board member.
I looked at the ballots /warrants this year in some SB2 towns as most now post them on their town’s websites. The average # of pages is less than four. In places that have both town and school under SB2 it is about six. Remember though that these ballots also include the elections for various offices in both town and school district which are also present on non-SB2 ballots. Not so onerous considering that you will have a month or more to read and decide.
Moultonboro Citizens Alliance
Like most people, I have an aversion to injustice. Here in the Live Free or Die State of New Hampshire, a glaring example of injustice is the levying of the odious view tax on property owners who have views from their property. It matters not to the Selectmen or contracted assessors, that you neither own the view being taxed nor do you control it.
Furthermore, they readily admit that determining the view value is subjective. I know this to be true. In October, 2008 in Grafton County Superior Court, Gary Roberge, Chief Executive of Avitar Associates of New England, who assessed the properties in
What this means is that, hypothetically, if five non-collaborating tax assessors arrive at a given property on different days to evaluate a view, it is not only possible but highly probable that five different tax values will result. The reason is simple. To this day the Department of Revenue Administration and the New Hampshire Assessing Standards Board have not issued a clear, concise definition of what constitutes a view despite repeated requests from Tom Thomson and other Public Members of the ASB to do so. As Mr. Eugene T. Reed, Public Member of the ASB has told me, "Assessing properties with views is up to the assessing company or local assessors. There is no standard or guideline."
Widespread subjectivity has no place in fair taxation and that is clearly what we have today in my view. Mad King George the Third of England would have rubbed his hands in glee at the thought of imposing such a tax on his American subjects in the colonies.
Adding insult to injury, The NHDRA states that there is no separate view tax in
Arbitrarily assigning an exact monetary value to a property view that will vary widely depending on which assessor is doing the evaluating and what kind of a day it is, is wrong. It's Un-American, and if it isn't illegal and unconstitutional, it certainly ought to be made so.
Also consider this. Avitar Associates of New England has already assessed more than half of the towns in New Hampshire, (110 at last count), a fact that Gary Roberge is most proud of. Moreover, Avitar has sold, and is currently selling its assessing software to
many other towns in
You may be thinking, "I am a property owner who pays taxes, but I don't have a view, so this doesn't concern me." That approach is wrong. It does affect you. If someone is being taxed disproportionately, it affects all other payers in the town or county as the budget must be borne by all. So, if one property owner is under-assessed for his view, and that can and does happen since there is no standard for assessing views, the others must make up the difference.
Astonishing as it may seem, in NH a barber must have a license to cut your hair, yet an assessor evaluating real estate, sometimes valued in the millions of dollars, does not. Furthermore, there is no ethics board to reprimand or discipline assessors who make bad value decisions, whether deliberate or not. Given the importance of property taxes,
These view taxes, and that's what they are, (despite the DRA's insistence on calling them view factors), are nothing less than backdoor increases that give government officials no incentive to rein in their spending. Frankly, I am sick and tired of government, local, state and federal, dipping further and further into our pockets, all as a direct result of their wanton spending.
Finally, I encourage all of you reading this to contact Governor John Lynch and tell him that he should ensure that more Public Members are appointed to the NH Assessing Standards Board, the ASB, and the Board of Taxation and Land Appeals, the BTLA. The reason is simple; both boards have too many assessors and appraisers serving on them and not enough Public Members, leaving the biggest stakeholders in the appeal process, the property owners, seriously under-represented. It's an unfair system that will not change until that happens.
Who was it who said, "For evil to triumph, it is only necessary for good men to stand by and do nothing."?
Frank M. Handibode Hebron, NH
To the Editor: Meredith News March 05, 2009
The Moultonboro Citizens Alliance received an e-mail that mentioned a relative who lives in Wolfeboro (an SB2 town) and that relative formerly attended all meetings. Now elderly with low vision, etc ”she votes absentee" and says "she and her husband watch meetings on TV and read to keep up on issues. They take their time marking (the) ballot and if they need to can do more research. I feel many of the older people are probably more informed than those that still out to vote.They also have the benefit of history and understand long term effects." However, if that Wolfeboro voter and her husband lived in Moultonboro, they would not be able to vote at the town meeting because of the length of the meeting and other age related problems. We hear about low turnouts at SB2 deliberative sessions, attending the deliberative session is not a prerequisite of casting an informed ballot. I attended the Wolfeboro deliberative session, on Feb. 3, as an interested observer. Two Hundred and twelve attendees voted on an amendment to a warrant article - who said that voters will not turn out for a deliberative session? There were two camera's broadcasting the proceedings live to the citizens of Wolfeboro and later it was to be broadcast on cable TV. On March 10, vote yes on SB2, Article 2, on both the school and the town ballots. Polls are open from 7 a.m. – 7 p.m. One more point, Wolfeboro makes it easy for their citizens to be better informed by broadcasting public meetings. I believe that Moultonboro can also. There is an article on the School Warrant,Article 7 which will provide an educational opportunity for students by developing a program to broadcast public meetings, athletic events etc and show them on cable TV. On March 14, I hope you will vote yes on Article 7 of the School Town Meeting.
Jim Leiterman
To the Editor: Meredith News March 05, 2009
I will vote in favor of SB2 for at least three reasons:
1. As the editorial of Feb. 19 indicates, SB2 allows for a more informed voter.
2.Only three towns out of 63 and no school districts out of 73 who have approved the
SB2 form of voting have gone back to the Town Meeting format.
3. On a very personal level - I had to make the choice not to travel out of state to see a personal friend receive an award. In an SB2 town the absentee ballot would have given me the opportunity to do my civic duty and honor my friend.
Jim Morrison
Editor, The Citizen: March 4, 2009
Regarding SB2, I would like to address the foremost issue beyond that of the “uninformed voter”, that treacherous “Default Budget”, and the “small number of people who could possibly change the meaning of or eliminate a warrant article”. As if there was NEVER an uninformed voter at the auction-like atmosphere of traditional town meetings… As if default budgets were not possible from traditional town meetings… And as if there NEVER was a small group of people with special interests or mercenary motivation who took controlled of traditional town meetings. Politics is a contact sport, even at the local level.
For those of you who are on the fence about SB2, these arguments are about all the opposition has to attempt to vilify this voting initiative. SB2 is NOT about slashing budgets, eliminating services and killing school systems. The bottom line is this; what it is really about is the FREEDOM OF THE VOTE. You ALL have the right to vote freely and privately. Voting is a freedom that is guaranteed to all of us in every other aspect of politics EXCEPT on this very local venue, that of our own town… our own tax dollars. If you are not able to be at the traditional town meeting you lose the right to vote on these issues.
Why would the selectmen, moderator, school board or budget committee not want you to vote? With 30 days to inform and educate the voter, with a much larger voter turnout at the voting booth or by absentee ballot and fairness to all registered voters, they still maintain their aggressive opposition to SB2. Perhaps their motivation is one of control.
To those who say the traditional town meeting is the “purest form of democracy”, I say pure democracy is the right to vote, privately and freely. Democracy should never be compromised. In many sections of this country officials are registering illegal aliens hand over fist so they may have a say in everything from city councils to the White House, but you and I cannot vote on critical local issues unless we are able to be present to openly raise our hands at the traditional town meeting?
Please consider your freedom; vote “YES” on March 10th when deciding the SB2 issue for the town and school system.
Rick Heath
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen: March 4, 2009
The Moultonboro Citizens Alliance is a group of concerned citizens whose mission is totally open government, voters’ rights, sensible spending, and community involvement. The MCA is a not-for-profit organization and all members are volunteers. The MCA wants to see Moultonborough grow with the town’s needs, not grow because of the special interest wants. MCA members attend a multitude of school and town public meetings because the MCA is dedicated to public involvement in our town government.
Recently, some vested interest in this fine community has criticized the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance. The thrust of their angst is that they do not have a list of MCA members and our supporters. The MCA does not provide a list of members or supporters because there are town employees and others that actively support our efforts who wish to protect their privacy. These same people cannot raise their hand or stand to be counted at our School and Town Meetings.
The efforts of the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance have contributed to increased voter participation in all town elections and town affairs. The MCA has reviewed some town proposals for facts, figures and informed monetary conclusions, such as the proposed Recreation Complex and has informed the voting public. Some of the information uncovered by the MCA has saved the taxpayers from unnecessary tax increase. Through the efforts of the MCA, the Right to Know Law is now respected and followed by our current town government. We, the volunteers of the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance will continue our quest to see that the Town of
Please vote on Election Day, March 10, 2009.
Al Hume
MCA
Moultonborough
In recent days a yellow flyer was sent via first class mail to many voters in Moultonboro. The content of the flyer was clearly anti SB2 and contained many gross inaccuracies and misrepresentations of facts meant solely as a scare tactic to sway voters against this voting initiative. It ends with an undignified jab at the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance (MCA).
Now, as a member of the MCA I have heard and read many inappropriate comments made toward our group. As a duly registered non- profit corporation dedicated to pubic involvement in town government, we are involved in many local issues ... issues that matter to a great many voters and taxpayers. We have sent out mailings in the past and always indicate clearly who created and paid for the mailing or handout. We even do the same (although not necessary) on all videos broadcast through our website.
Not so with the yellow anti SB2 flyer. The folded, first class stamped paper I received was signed by a twice elected official currently up for re-election. There is no mention however of the group behind it or who paid for it. No mention of whether it was sent as part of a re-election campaign or just a personal campaign against SB2 and the MCA.
When questioned by email on the content and purpose of the flyer, the elected official who signed the flyer stated that the "flyer was created by a group of people who are opposed to SB2 and then made available to use as a mailer. Believe it or not, I don't know who the final author was — it was a group effort. I didn't participate in its development."
Yet she did sign it ( in red no less). We have to accept that she agrees with its content in its entirety.
Now, the MCA has been accused of not being transparent, although most in public government know who we are. We sign our letters as Moultonboro Citizens Alliance; our articles of incorporation have been in the public venue since inception and have made presentations in public forums as the MCA. In our recent SB2 presentation, all our data was credited to the appropriate source so people could go look it up for themselves.
Contrast that to the unknown authors and funding behind this grossly misleading, inflammatory and yes, very poorly written flyer. The unknown "group of people" who drafted the flyer ask the question "who elected the Moultonboro Citizens Alliance"? I ask the question: who elected the unknown authors of this flyer?
Vote Yes for SB2 on March 10, 2009.
Paul Punturieri
Moultonboro Citizens
Moultonborough
Editor, The Citizen March 03, 2009
Its time for SB 2 in Moultonborough!
As a retiree living on a fixed income and watching the money I planned to live on reduced by nearly 40% over the past year, and knowing that most retirees, who make up a large percentage of the town's population, are in the same situation, it makes no sense to me that 3 members of the Board of Selectmen would recommend that residents approve to raise $137,500.00 from taxation for ball field construction on the Lion's Club property.
With the economy reeling you would think that our elected officials would choose to support "needs" over "wishes", but a small group of special interest folks are trying to backdoor the recreation issue once again, and have succeeded in getting 3 of our "spend happy" Selectmen to back them.
What will happen at Town Meeting is this group will show up in force to attempt to sway the passage of Article 16. The people who are against it (probably the majority of residents) might not attend for whatever reason. It's been my experience that people who want something will attend and voice their support, and those against, even if they're the majority will not mainly due to fear of intimidation and confrontation. This is the exact reason SB 2 was created. It would give all of our residents a forum to voice their opinions in the "safety" of a voting booth and send a message to the current "spend happy" board!
Bob Patenaude
Moultonborough
**Please Note: Items to be placed on the Selectmen’s Meeting Agenda must be submitted by 4 p.m. on the preceding Friday
Office of Selectmen
P. O. Box 139 / 6 Holland Street
Moultonborough, NH 03254
603-476-2347
AGENDA
Selectmen’s Meeting March 5, 2009
I. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 PM
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. REVIEW / APPROVAL MINUTES: February 19, 2009
IV. NEW RESIDENTS:
V. PUBLIC MEETING:
4:00 Non-Public Session Per RSA 91-A:3 II (b)
VI. NEW BUSINESS:
1. Action: Open & Review Bids for Custodial Services - Town Buildings
2. Action: Review CEO’s Report – Mason Property
3. Action: Review Report Town Buildings’ Water Quality
4. Action: Review & Approve Agreement for Telephone Audit & Project Management Services
5. Action: Review & Approve 2009 SMS Internet GIS Provider Contract
6. Action: Review & Acknowledge Sick Leave Bank Deposits
7.
Action: Review & Approve Agreement with LRPC for Safe Routes to Schools ServicesVII. OLD BUSINESS:
VIII OTHER BUSINESS:
1. Legislative Update
2. Planning Board Update
3. Administration Update
4. Moultonborough Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes, January 8, 2009
5. ABC Minutes, February 10, 2009 & February 12, 2009
6. Planning Board Minutes, February 25, 2009
IX. PENDING:
X. CORRESPONDENCE:
XI. ADJOURNMENT:
To the Editor:
The Meredith News February 26, 2009
Once again, reading the daily papers, I find the anti SB2 people writing about the “uninformed voter,” that “treacherous Default Budget,” and the “small number of people who could possibly change the meaning of or eliminate a warrant article.” Like there was never an uninformed voter at the auction-like town meeting… like default budgets were unheard of from town meetings… and (here is the real laugh-out-loud funny one) like there never was a small group of people with special interests or mercenary motivation who took control of town meeting... duh! For those of you who are on the fence about SB2, these arguments are all emotional efforts to scare the public into staying with the centuries old, out dated, powerfully manipulated and limiting way to vote the use of your tax dollar. SB2 is not about slashing budgets, eliminating services and killing school systems. It is about the freedom of the vote.....
